Strategic CIO // IT Strategy
Commentary
2/20/2014
10:06 AM
100%
0%

Women, IT & The Outrage Machine

Business is booming for pundits who get their clicks bemoaning the existential danger of gender imbalances in high tech. But guess what? It's irrational BS.

Vivek Wadwha, a fellow at Stanford's Rock Center for Corporate Governance, has made something of a cottage industry ginning up outrage over shoddy treatment of women in IT in general and in Silicon Valley in particular.

At first glance, the stats do seem alarming. Women are proportionally underrepresented in STEM programs. Girls aren't interested in computers. The Washington Post breathlessly cites a report from the Center for Talent Innovation that shows women working in these fields in the US are 45% more likely than their male peers to leave the industry within a year.

Quick, call the government regulators.

Or just calm down, because you know what they say about statistics: Torture them enough, and they'll tell you anything you want to hear.

More on the numbers in a moment. What's really stunning are the, shall we say, gratuitous mental leaps. Take this quote from Wadwha's Wall Street Journal blog from January: "Because there are few women in engineering, girls don't perceive computing to be a friendly profession, so fewer are entering the field."

How did Wadwha come up with that? Did he conduct a study? Did he actually ask a girl? Because the Girl Scouts did. In fact, the organization surveyed 852 US girls ages 14-17. The group was diversified with respect to geographical region, urbanicity, and racial/ethnic breakdown. Of those interested in STEM, just about 30% overall said issues often noted by the experts are a reason to avoid these careers. Even more interesting is that, if you look at the top career goals for girls interested in STEM, they don't align very well with how IT as a profession is promoted. After all, how often do you hear that IT helps people or makes the world a better place to live?

Maybe the problem isn't promoting IT as a place for women, but promoting it as a place where everyone can directly or indirectly have a positive impact on the world. But, hey, doing that would be difficult. It's easier to wring our hands.

Frankly, I'm tired of men purporting to understand the reasons women choose one field over another. And I'm just as exhausted by the "Oh, nos! We don't have enough women in high tech!" What's the appropriate ratio? Does it have to be 50%, or will 30% suffice? Maybe we should shoot for 80%? Why isn't Wadwha -- or anyone else I've read -- lamenting the low number of men in nursing or teaching or any other field that suffers from a gender imbalance? Or how women are underrepresented in construction, auto mechanics, or trash collection?

My theory: IT and engineering pay well. Practitioners and those who cater to them possess an alarming level of political correctness paired with a lot of disposable income. The troops in the hand-wringer brigade know on which side their organic, fair-trade $4 toast is buttered.

Maybe it's time to face the reality that many women, for a variety of reasons, aren't interested in high tech. Maybe it's the long hours, or the constant travel, or the fact that they'd rather go into life sciences, or that you have to live in the Valley or some other high-tech center to get ahead. I've met many excellent women in the IT trenches in the South and Midwest, and I'm guessing not a one of them wants to move to Santa Clara just to be counted among the top women in high tech.

In a WSJ blog post telling us how to fix the problem, Wadwha says all this is the fault of employers, not women. He quotes "diversity experts" such as Lucy Sanders, CEO of the National Center for Women & Information Technology, who says, "For example, job descriptions that are overloaded with long lists of required skills (which may or may not be needed on day one, and could be learned on the job) may cause women to not apply if they don't have each and every skill; men on the other hand will tend to apply if they have only a subset of the skills."

Holy logic leap, Batman. If men apply without having all the requirements, but women don't, why is that the fault of the HR wonk writing the listing? Isn't it really about how women evaluate a help-wanted ad? Isn't it their fault they don't choose to apply?

Then there are these pearls of advice: Interview at least one woman and one member of a minority for every open position. And don't forget to haul in some women to conduct the interview. Why? "A female candidate will recognize that the business values diversity if the interviewers are men and women, and she is more likely to join the company if offered a job," says Telle Whitney, CEO of the Anita Borg Institute.

What if no women or minorities apply? Are we supposed to drag some in off the street? What if the women who are in a position to intelligently add to the interview process are, you know, working? Shall we just grab someone with breasts at random?

[If you realize that mobile security means more than ensuring users don't download malware-bearing games from the Android store, take our 2014 survey and enter to win a 32 GB Kindle Fire HDX.]

Look, my biggest fear when entering this field is that I would end up the token woman. Biggest fear. I want to be respected because I'm that good, not because I happened to be born female. I spent the first eight years of my career in development surrounded by men, and by hiring teams full of men. I didn't give a rat's ass about diversity or how many women I'd work with. I cared about whether the job was interesting, paid well, and was going to further my career.

You want to attract smart, capable women? Make sure hiring decisions are based on merit, skill, and the ability to learn and work as part of a team. Treat all your people well. Oh, and don't be so quick to mock interview questions that may seem off the wall. I used to help interview developers. I asked what kind of music they like. You know why? Because I've never met a developer who listened to country music who was worth hiring. Arbitrary? Maybe. But we once took a chance on a country fan and lived to regret it. (I'll talk more on the topic of interviews in my next column.)

If young women aren't majoring in computer science, it's because they don't want to. Maybe they like medicine better. You want numbers? Here are some true facts courtesy of the National Science Foundation: "Women constituted the majority of graduate students in psychology (76%), medical/other life sciences (76%), biological sciences (57%), and social sciences (54%), and were close to half of graduate students in agricultural sciences (49%) and earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences (46%)." Maybe some women want to major in history, business, or Mandarin and learn to code on their own.

So before we spend lots of effort trying to fix the problem of gender imbalance in high tech, let's think about whether it matters, or whether the real answer has nothing to do with women and equality and everything to do with some distorted notion of social justice that is highly selective and apparently applies to only a subset of high-paying, high-profile careers.

Engage with Oracle president Mark Hurd, NFL CIO Michelle McKenna-Doyle, General Motors CIO Randy Mott, Box founder Aaron Levie, UPMC CIO Dan Drawbaugh, GE Power CIO Jim Fowler, and other leaders of the Digital Business movement at the InformationWeek Conference and Elite 100 Awards Ceremony, to be held in conjunction with Interop in Las Vegas, March 31 to April 1, 2014. See the full agenda here.

The author, a senior IT manager at a Silicon Valley tech vendor, shares her experiences under the pseudonym Tammie Colivariti. She has spent decades in high tech, from development to security and infrastructure, and has never hesitated to tell it like it is, even when "it" is ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
zerochamp
50%
50%
zerochamp,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/4/2014 | 4:55:11 AM
Pay grade analysis
Here's an article on Quartz that may help or hinder this messy debate  It shows evidence that the pay gap between sexes in IT doesn't exist, although judging by the comments thread it may be guilty of logical leaps that the author here so strongly complains about.
jwestbrooks293
50%
50%
jwestbrooks293,
User Rank: Strategist
2/26/2014 | 4:03:24 PM
Re: The smarter gender?
You're right and I don't know what the answer is.  I wish I did.
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/26/2014 | 3:49:29 PM
Re: The smarter gender?
You raise an interesting premise - what if employers had to pay overtime for all those 60 - 80 hour weeks spent coding? What would happen? My guess is, even more programming jobs would move to India or other countries without US-style labor laws. That wouldn't be good for men or women in the profession.

On the other hand, neither is being expected to work long hours as a matter of course, as opposed to occasionally when big projects enter crunch time.
jwestbrooks293
50%
50%
jwestbrooks293,
User Rank: Strategist
2/26/2014 | 3:43:13 PM
Re: The smarter gender?
Yep.  Until the revolution comes and IT workers demand that they not be classified as "exempt" just because they work in a computer related job.  Until then IT work, for the mass of people, will just be a modern incarnation of the chain-gang.
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/23/2014 | 4:48:50 PM
Re: NSF stats tell the story
On the contrary - my advice couldn't be further from "sit down and shut up." And not to speak for Tammie, but I believe she feels the same.

It's more like: Go wherever the heck you want to go and do what you want to do. Don't let anyone -- including the hand-wringers -- tell you you can't or it's too scary or you'll be held down. Be a stand-up person and a team player. Keep your skills up to date. Be kind. Demand to be treated fairly. If a company doesn't value you, find one that does. Reach down to help those coming up behind you.
eunheekim
50%
50%
eunheekim,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2014 | 3:52:03 PM
Re: NSF stats tell the story
Pointing out that systemic racism and sexism exists in our society isn't walking around with a "chip on [one's] shoulder." Sad that your advice to marginalized people is to just sit down and shut up.
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/23/2014 | 3:07:45 PM
Re: NSF stats tell the story
"Maybe because, historically, women and PoC didn't have a voice. It's not until recent times that minorities can actually speak up without fear of persecution."

So, what, you want women and minorities to walk around with chips on their shoulders? For how long? Five more years? 10? How do you think that's going to work out?

Look, I spent six years in the military, much of it in an armored division where there were 10 men for every three women. It Texas. In the late 1980s. Talk about pervasive sexism. But I learned pretty fast that most men treated me the way I demanded -- and deserved based on my skills -- to be treated. Let's stop already with the "I am a victimization waiting to happen" mentality. All that mindset is doing is adding to the PR problem that IT has and discouraging women from entering the field, which makes the whole thing a vicious circle.

We can't and should not sweep illegal discrimination and harassment under the rug. But let's also decide not to walk around expecting to be treated like crap, because that tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
eunheekim
50%
50%
eunheekim,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2014 | 10:42:10 AM
Re: NSF stats tell the story
"That's kind of the point - folks who care more about diversity than anything else have their say and dominate the conversation every day."

Maybe because, historically, women and PoC didn't have a voice. It's not until recent times that minorities can actually speak up without fear of persecution.

"At some point women have to take responsibiltiy for their own choices; it's not always the fault of the employer or other employees. As if women can't make their own choices and are herded like sheep into other fields because of men, employers, and the education system."

What I personally don't understand is your insistence on ignoring the sexism that pervades the IT community. As someone who works in the IT industry, writes about IT and is a woman, you'd have to be hiding under a rock to not see the countless articles that come out month after month describing the level of sexual harassment women face. Go ahead and type "IT industry sexism" into Google. Or read the Twitter accounts of women who've led established careers in technology and are finally speaking out because they're either retired, left the IT industry or are now independent contractors. It's everywhere, and you can cover your ears and hide from it as much as you want, but the problem is there, it's real, and it's not going to go away.

If you want to be ignorant about what happens to other people in this industry, that's on you. But don't write articles blaming women for not wanting to be part of a hostile work environment.

"And again, "blame" implies some kind of problem. No one has satisfiactorily answered why we're having this debate in the first place."

Then apparently you're not paying attention.
Tammie Colivariti
50%
50%
Tammie Colivariti,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2014 | 9:29:04 AM
Re: NSF stats tell the story
That's kind of the point - folks who care more about diversity than anything else have their say and dominate the conversation every day.

We've been trying to "fix" this problem for 20 years and with all the meddling we've done where have we gotten?

Fewer women in technology. Apparently our meddling and concern is doing more harm than good. Most likely because we're looking at the problem completely wrong. If you really want to change the ratio of women in technology, then it's time to start considering we're looking in the wrong places to tinker.

At some point women have to take responsibiltiy for their own choices; it's not always the fault of the employer or other employees. As if women can't make their own choices and are herded like sheep into other fields because of men, employers, and the education system. Sometimes that's a factor, and we have rules and regulations and policies that govern those situations. And yet here we are, with the same "problem" and the same old debate.

And again, "blame" implies some kind of problem. No one has satisfiactorily answered why we're having this debate in the first place.
AbdulT993
50%
50%
AbdulT993,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/22/2014 | 2:43:19 PM
Thank you, Tammie Colivariti
Thank you for this well-written, common sense article. The FACT of the matter is that nothing, absolutely nothing, is keeping women from entering into IT. Despite all of the wailing, moaning and hand wringing of the would-be social engineers, women freely make their own career choices these days and have for quite some time. Everyone knows that it is illegal to deny someone a job based on gender, so it is a woman's own choice whether or not to get into IT.  Duh.

The "outrage machine" is actually just a liberal political agenda. Who else but liberals bean count every facet of life hunting for X (gender, ethnic, sex orientation, etc) under-representation or inequality or whatever their cause du jour?

Abdul
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Nov. 10, 2014
Just 30% of respondents to our new survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of November 16, 2014.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.