She/Her

I disagree with you Linkat, in two ways.

There are formal ways to make business contacts. I send my resume to the HR department who then calls me for an interview. Once this formal process starts... everything is on the record and above board. A hiring manager can't take me out to a strip club to close a deal (at least not now).

I am talking about informal networks. I am a software engineer. I work in a male dominated profession. To get the best opportunities... particularly in startup... you don't start with a resume. You start with a social network. When I go to a strip club with a bunch of engineers, I am making connections. When Bob, who is a senior network architect at Cisco Systems, has an opening to fill... he will remember that Max bought him a lap dance. Of course, once the hiring process has started, buying him a lap dance would be out of the question (and unethical), but by this point this connection has already been made.

The feminists in the 1970s were right about this. Keeping women out of golf clubs and social organizations worked to keep women out of these informal social networks that are essential to getting the best opportunities.

You are naive to assume that this doesn't still happen. Business deals between human beings are based on relationships. My skills are valuable, but they aren't unique. When I am trying to land a great job, there will always be someone else with the same necessary skills. Hiring decisions are often made by a human manager who is asking "who do I like better".

I don’t think you read my post thoroughly .. I said at least in the financial industry. I can’t vouch for others but the financial industry is so regulated they do almost the opposite.

We actually look for anyone but white males unless we do not have a choice.

Linkat... I did read your post thoroughly. My point is that there is a key difference between formal processes and informal relationships in any industry. I don't know about the financial industry... but I am going to guess that like any industry a lot of deals get made though networks and personal connections. Am I wrong?

Yes, there is an official process that offers some protections. But, people who are intelligent and connected go around that process. I highly recommend the book "What Color is your Parachute"... it is a classic on the job search but the point really is about personal networks. You do best when you work your social connections to get your foot in the door... the most successful people see the HR process as nothing more than red tape after they have leveraged personal connections to get the opportunity they want.

Does your company offer an employee referral bonus?

I just googled the latest stats. Somewhere between 50-80% of jobs are filled through personal connections. And 70% of open positions are not publicly advertised (you need to have a connection to know about them).

Networking and social connections are still very important to a successful career. Especially at the top levels of an industry, the people with the best social connections get the best jobs.

I’ve read that book but things have changed. That is an old book.

Yes you can get pushed into a company by who you know however with the Me too movement and BLM .. we actually look to hire those that are more diverse ... you might get an interview if you know someone but sorry to say if you are a white male and if some one interviews that is not and is qualified they will be selected.

That is the current informal process. At least from where I work at a large financial institution...
Is it wrong ... probably no more wrong than the old boys network.

I can understand the knowing someone .. the jobs I am interviewing are all internal hires that is why many are not publicly posted. Most large companies post internally and hire within if at possible. With so many jobs going overseas there is little need to go outside the company to hire and to promote.

Which ever way you go about companies are looking for a more diverse workforce at all levels. Our company Mae it clear they are hiring at especially the higher levels more women and people of color.

This right after the me too movement ... talking about the fearless girl statue outside of Wall Street and then in meetings after the BLM movement.

You are confusing two separate issues.

1) Most people today (according to any informed data that I can find) get jobs through informal connections. These informal connections rely on the types of social institutions that feminists worked hard to integrated in the 1970s and 1980s.

2) Many companies are working to create more diverse workforces. This often means choosing minorities and women over equally (or slightly more) qualified White men.

These are both true. There are different issues.

I have no problem with Affirmative Action in theory. Companies should be trying to hire more workforces. However... when I am personally looking for a better job, I deliberately avoid the process.

I work in software engineering. The HR people who are implementing whatever hiring policies don't have the slightest clue about the work that I will be doing if they hire me. HR people can match words on my resume with keywords on their little job sheets. But they don't know what these terms mean or have any ability to judge whether I can do the job or not.

The hiring decisions must be made by the hiring manager. When we bring in people for an interview, we have them do technical tasks for us, and then we judge them on their technical knowledge, their ability to explain their thoughts (important for my team). And I judge them based on whether I like them. On the HR forms we have to fill out we call this "cultural fit"... but what it really means is whether I think I want to work 8 hours a day with this person.

When I look for a job, the first thing I do is talk to my buddies to find out what cool opportunities are out there. If one of them knows a hiring manager who need someone with my skills, then I set up an interview. We skip the whole HR process (until the very end).

The primary job of HR is to screen people out. I don't want to be screened out... so whenever possible, I skip them and talk directly to the hiring manager.

I hope I am not the only one who finds this amusing.

I am a self-described anti-feminist. And yet I am again in the position of defending a traditionally feminist position.

I am the hiring manager. I cannot interview anyone without them going through HR first. We have lots of red tape. Also I need to look at internal candidates and hire within unless it is not possible. We have moved so many positions overseas that there are amble number of people to hire within especially those that are more diverse.

Let's say there is someone you know and trust from church. They have the skills you need, but more than that they have a good character and you know you want them on your team...

What would the process be? We all know that hiring strangers based on tears and interviews is a crap shoot at best.

Are you arguing that is is good to take human relationships out of business?

Again you are not reading what I wrote ... I am interviewing internally she a person at church unless they worked for the company would not be considered unless we had no one internally that was capable even if this person at church was a better candidate and I would prefer them.

Also we are required to have a colleague also interview the candidates so as to prevent a friendship sort of hiring. Does it still go on sometimes ... yes. But it certainly does not work the same way as the old boys network. And I am sure there are still companies that function this way however most are trying to give at least the appearance they are working towards a diverse workplace.. not favoritism... heck no company wants a lawsuit or even bad publicity that they do not support diversity.

Your philosophy of business seems to be process ahead of people. I disagree with that, and my personal experience doesn't match your philosophy.

My business is competitive and personal. A development manager needs to put together a team that will produce a good product, with unique features, before the the competition. A development manager has wide latitude to pick the people that she wants... and "cultural fit" is a things... you choose people you know will work well together. Most of us know each other already, picking people who know each other to be on your team is the best way to eliminate risk and to hit the ground running. Inclusion is a good thing, but inclusion is not what managers are judged on. If we don't produce a viable product quickly, the manager's head is on the line and inclusion is literally meaningless.

Software engineering sticks with the "old boys network" because the old boys network works! It is the best way to meet the needs (creating innovative productive times quickly). There is a big discussion in our industry about how to include women into this network.... we know that there is a problem. However, taking human relationships out of business is not a good solution.

Your business philosophy treats human beings as entries into an excel spreadsheet. Internal... check. Minority... check. Male... oops and out pops a candidate by some mathematical process that ignores the fact that this person is a human being.

I don't see how successful businesses in competitive industries could work this way. Yes, inclusion is an important goal. But, you don't get there by treating human beings as interchangeable cogs in an impersonal process.

It’s not my philosophy it is the industry philosophy

I believe you an ideal view of industry that is not realistic.

I agree with you that diversity is a worthy goal, and is a goal that big companies are talking about.

I disagree policies that treat job applicants as check boxes of attributes rather than human beings are effective at all. Good managers choose their people as people. They ask questions like "do I trust this person", or "will this person fit in well with my team". There is no mechanical process for building a team. A team is made out of human beings, not Excel spreadsheet entries.

I am not quite sure what you are arguing. I state the following as true... tell me which of these points you actually disagree with.

1. Managers are judged on business values (productivity, profitability) that have economic value to the company far more than on ideals like diversity. Of course sometimes diversity leads to productivity, but sometimes it doesn't.

2. A productive manager will make the choice that will make their team more productive. There are good managers who care about diversity, but the team comes first... candidates are judged primarily by who will add the most to the team.

3. There are always ways around company-wide policies for good managers. This is by design... companies know that empowering their managers to build effective teams is the best way to be productive. This means giving managers a large leeway to make decisions-- including hiring decisions. Handcuffing managers is not a very good way to have productive teams.

I can give examples of each of these points from my industry. But I would like to know which of these (if any) do you actually disagree with?

Short term it may. It is understandable that when a solution is needed post haste, that this method is useful. The same is not necessarily true for matters of less urgency. In point of fact, just grabbing Chuck, Pablo or Elmer, could be detrimental in the long term.

At any rate, you then contradict yourself with:




The only way to move forward, beyond this is through going outside of your "good old boys network".

If you don't, then women of the future, such as your daughter, will continue to be held back and denied their rights of achievement. Is that what you want?

You claim that you want everybody to be given opportunity equally. Your actions belie the claim.

Change comes by reaching outside of the perimeter of safety you refuse to puncture.

There is no contradiction.

1. The "old boys network" works (in building productive teams that get business results).
2. There is a problem with the lack of diversity.

These are both true.

You say "there is only one way to move forward...". I strongly disagree. There is not only one solution to the problem of diversity. This is a complicated problem without a single simple solution.

I am against these impersonal processes that are pushed down from on high. They don't work because teams are made up of individuals and applicants are not interchangeable lists of attributes. Teams depend on relationships and interactions between human beings. You can't take the humanness out of work.

I work in engineering (definitely a male dominated field). My question is not how to get rid of human interactions and connections. To me the question is how to change the "old boys network" into a more inclusive network.

Getting rid of human interactions is not a good idea. Figuring out how to include more people in existing networks is a far more effective way forward. It isn't the simple solution, but the simple solution doesn't work.

Human interacting will happen. Hire the best personnel. If that means reaching out and hiring Penelope from the competitor, then go and do it. Penelope in turn might bring along Zora, Anne and Bruce. Now you have started to diversify.

The reason we have Affirmative action policies is because we know from experience that telling people to "hire the best personnel" doesn't lead to diversity.

It is not a simple problem, and there isn't a simple solution.

If you don't try, your future may die.

Not saying it's easy; but you need to put the effort in.