Intel Takes Lead In SV Diversity Push (What Will Happen To CPU Design)

[ARMD Supremacy]

Picture from Intel Blog​

From USA Today and Washington Post Feb 9, 2015 :

Intel will spend at least $300 million over the next five years to make its U.S. workforce — and the workforce in Silicon Valley — look more like the workforce of the nation. "This isn't just good business," Krzanich said. "This is the right thing to do."

Silicon Valley has never been a terribly diverse place. But now it's owning up to the problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/09/black-history-tech-diversity/23151971/

Rosalind Hudnell, Intel’s chief diversity officer, detailed in an e-mail to me several internal and external efforts that Intel is launching, which she says Krzanich and Intel’s president, Renee James, will oversee personally. She says Krzanich has told managers that their pay will be linked to their success in attaining diversity.

Hudnell says that Intel is focused on educating its employees on the importance of diversity, listening to and addressing concerns, and putting into place tracking mechanisms. She says the company is running forums for the thousands of managers who do the hiring and promotions and create the environment in which Intel employees work.

In these, they share and analyze detailed diversity data and discuss what needs to change, determine where the shortfalls are, and set firm goals. The company is planning to create dashboards on which employees can monitor progress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ch-industry-is-fixing-its-diversity-quagmire/

These changes from Intel and other companies may create diversity, but it is a question if it will create better transistors and CPUs. If this policy is pushed by Intel, then their HKMG will not mean hi-k metal gate, but "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls", because hiring and promotions will be based on diversity and not foremost design progress.

 

[AtenRa]

LoL, Im sure Idontcare has a Hello Kitty like this one.

 

[NTMBK]

If this policy is pushed by Intel, then their HKMG will not mean hi-k metal gate, but "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls", because hiring and promotions will be based on diversity and not foremost design progress.

You're seriously grasping at straws aren't you

 

[MisterMac]

I think everyone is all for diversity - but if there's one place i don't want diversity or other hippie constructs to make life pleasant for everyone...it's science & technology.

all that should matter here is advancement and performance.
Best for the job regardless (Which i assume is how they'll still hire but pr like this helps marketing people i geuss).

 

[witeken]

These changes from Intel and other companies may create diversity, but it is a question if it will create better transistors and CPUs. If this policy is pushed by Intel, then their HKMG will not mean hi-k metal gate, but "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls", because hiring and promotions will be based on diversity and not foremost design progress.

I don't think much will happen in those highly technical parts of the company. Semiconductor PhDs aren't flying around for free, after all.

 

[Valantar]

Please stop propagating the myth that pro-diversity campaigns harm productivity or innovation - all studies I've ever seen on the subject show clear data towards the opposite being the result. Try googling it. To help you along, here's a quote from the abstract of the first result when googling "gender diversity productivity relationship:"

The consequences of gender diversity are found to depend on the technological/knowledge environment of firms. While gender diversity generates significant gains in high-tech/knowledge intensive sectors[...]

While it's true that the fields of ICT and engieneering have "always" been male-dominated, making the mistake of thinking this is due to some innate male superiority in these fields is just plain ignorant. When all genders (and social backgrounds, for that matter) are given equal access to good education and work experience, are shielded from discrimination (be it positive or negative), and actually rewarded based on merit rather than (conscious or unconscious) bias, the result is almost always a net gain.

The prepubescent boys club mentality of the tech scene/industry is holding it back, not ensuring its continued excellence. This mentality is also (obviously) the reason that diversity is such a problem - when women have to work far harder and prove themselves far more than men (due to people with hiring power thinking that they're just "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls" as you put it), it's obvious that more men will both stay and excel in the industry.

Given the societal and cultural biases against women in any highly educated field, it's astounding how great an impact they've had on our current wealth of knowledge and technical innovations. You might perhaps have heard of Ada Lovelace?

 

[Idontcare]

The downside to diversity initiatives is not in the changes made to the selection (hiring) process but rather it is the changes that are effected in the firing process.

Success stories from diversity in employment are clear and abundant, but so too are the nightmares of not being able to "unload" an ineffective (or worse, dysfunctional) employee because of HR policies regarding diversity in the workplace.

Diversity in the workplace initiatives are meant to increase employment opportunities made available to a broader range of otherwise proficient and capable individuals. But they are still supposed to be able to get the job done. When you can't lay-off an individual, despite their lagging performance, because of an existing HR diversity initiative then you start to have problems.

I applaud BK's efforts to effect change at Intel. If done well then it will lead to a stronger and more innovative workforce.

 

[senseamp]

I remember at a previous job, a manager of one ethnicity wanted to (deservedly IMO) fire an employee of another ethnicity, but was afraid of being sued for discrimination, so he scheduled a design review for said employee, and invited employees who all "coincidentally" happened to be of a third ethnicity as observers. It was pretty hilarious, but that's the extent to which companies go to to avoid even appearance of discrimination in Silicon Valley. It's a meritocracy for the most part here.
I am all for diversity, we need architects, logic designers, circuit designers, verification folks, and software folks, to be fully represented

 

[Denithor]

I don't think much will happen in those highly technical parts of the company. Semiconductor PhDs aren't flying around for free, after all.

This. Companies have to hire people who are, first and foremost, qualified and CAPABLE of doing a given job. Focusing on hiring a diverse workforce is a laudable goal but cannot take priority over hiring a capable workforce or the company will degrade quite rapidly.

 

[Valantar]

(...) in Silicon Valley. It's a meritocracy for the most part here.

You're joking now, right? One of the least diverse industries in the modern world, and you're claiming it's a meritocracy? Wow. On what level, exactly? Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects. This is, luckily, changing due to a series of initiatives targeting this, but claiming that women in general today aren't discouraged from pursuing tech careers, or that they don't have to perform better than (as opposed to equally well as) their male counterparts, is simply not true. Posturing to avoid being sued (due to the ridiculous lawsuit culture in the US) is not the same as actually making any effort to level the playing field, and that you mistake it for that is quite shocking. Yes, of course wrongly implemented diversity programmes can have adverse effects, as can any badly implemented workplace policy. Strangely, though, these programmes have a very, very solid track record of improving things.

 

[TuxDave]

These changes from Intel and other companies may create diversity, but it is a question if it will create better transistors and CPUs. If this policy is pushed by Intel, then their HKMG will not mean hi-k metal gate, but "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls", because hiring and promotions will be based on diversity and not foremost design progress.

This ignorance is why there's a diversity push in the first place.

ALSO... you guys are making the wrong assumption that a diversity push will be like:
"Perfect screening & candidates" --> "Diverse, sub-par screening & candidates"

Actually it's more like:
"Sub-par screening & candidates" --> "Diverse, sub-par screening & candidates"

 

[Arachnotronic]

These changes from Intel and other companies may create diversity, but it is a question if it will create better transistors and CPUs. If this policy is pushed by Intel, then their HKMG will not mean hi-k metal gate, but "Hello Kitty Mobile Girls", because hiring and promotions will be based on diversity and not foremost design progress.

Not sure if serious.

 

[Valantar]

This. Companies have to hire people who are, first and foremost, qualified and CAPABLE of doing a given job. Focusing on hiring a diverse workforce is a laudable goal but cannot take priority over hiring a capable workforce or the company will degrade quite rapidly.

Aaaaand ... nobody is talking about that. This is another myth commonly believed by people who simply don't understand how discrimination works. No one is arguing for prioritizing less qualified candidates for jobs due to belonging to whatever minority you want to encourage. They're simply saying that a woman with the same qualifications as a man, competing for the same job, should have the same chance at getting hired as he has. Statistics show that this is simply not the case today - not by a long shot. For some this might be a conscious descision, for others the result of a subconscious bias. Both tendencies, perhaps especially the last one, has been the subject of quite a bit of research. The point is that neither of these is an acceptable answer as to why women are underrepresented to the point of marginalization in any industry. Which again leads us back to why programmes like this are necessary. Not to "forcibly" diversify the workforce, but to break down a culture of (unconscious?) discrimination so that there might one day be a level playing field.

 

[Essence_of_War]

The downside to diversity initiatives is not in the changes made to the selection (hiring) process but rather it is the changes that are effected in the firing process.

Success stories from diversity in employment are clear and abundant, but so too are the nightmares of not being able to "unload" an ineffective (or worse, dysfunctional) employee because of HR policies regarding diversity in the workplace.

Diversity in the workplace initiatives are meant to increase employment opportunities made available to a broader range of otherwise proficient and capable individuals. But they are still supposed to be able to get the job done. When you can't lay-off an individual, despite their lagging performance, because of an existing HR diversity initiative then you start to have problems.

I applaud BK's efforts to effect change at Intel. If done well then it will lead to a stronger and more innovative workforce.

I'm sort of annoyed that your enthusiasm for seeing a workforce that looks more like the population at large is tempered by the fear that you'll be unable to get rid of them quickly enough. :\

 

[Ranulf]

You're joking now, right? One of the least diverse industries in the modern world, and you're claiming it's a meritocracy? Wow. On what level, exactly? Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects. This is, luckily, changing due to a series of initiatives targeting this, but claiming that women in general today aren't discouraged from pursuing tech careers, or that they don't have to perform better than (as opposed to equally well as) their male counterparts, is simply not true. Posturing to avoid being sued (due to the ridiculous lawsuit culture in the US) is not the same as actually making any effort to level the playing field, and that you mistake it for that is quite shocking. Yes, of course wrongly implemented diversity programmes can have adverse effects, as can any badly implemented workplace policy. Strangely, though, these programmes have a very, very solid track record of improving things.

Uh huh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/upshot/women-on-the-board-quotas-have-limited-success.html?_r=0

Your country made it law that 40% of women be on corporate boards... thats the government telling people who they have to hire. All right fine. I want 40% of all teachers in K-12 to be men, mandated by law!

 

[Idontcare]

I'm sort of annoyed that your enthusiasm for seeing a workforce that looks more like the population at large is tempered by the fear that you'll be unable to get rid of them quickly enough. :\

I'm sort of annoyed at your enthusiasm for supporting people who make soap out of babies :\

See, we both can make completely fabricated comments and post them as if they had or have any bearing whatsoever on the position or inclinations of the person we are commenting about.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Dammit, the SJWs are EVERYWHERE now! >:|

 

[alyarb]

At my university the computer engineering college was still comprised of asian men. Maybe 3 out of ten were non-asian. Black and hispanic were totally not represented. Women were not represented.

So what is the solution to this, a career fair at high schools? Or maybe we should start portraying engineers as really cool enviable people in the media?

How about you get a more diverse group of people interested in these career paths rather than putting pressure on companies to take a chance on a candidate who isn't the best choice but has the most politically advantageous gender or skin color?

 

[Headfoot]

Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects.

Oh, you mean like all of those woman only scholarships out there. Where you get free money literally for being a woman.

 

[Headfoot]

Dammit, the SJWs are EVERYWHERE now! >:|

Seriously, what a joke

 

[Headfoot]

You're joking now, right? One of the least diverse industries in the modern world, and you're claiming it's a meritocracy? Wow. On what level, exactly? Women are being systematically discriminated against from school age and upwards with regards to technical and scientific ability and future prospects. This is, luckily, changing due to a series of initiatives targeting this, but claiming that women in general today aren't discouraged from pursuing tech careers, or that they don't have to perform better than (as opposed to equally well as) their male counterparts, is simply not true. Posturing to avoid being sued (due to the ridiculous lawsuit culture in the US) is not the same as actually making any effort to level the playing field, and that you mistake it for that is quite shocking. Yes, of course wrongly implemented diversity programmes can have adverse effects, as can any badly implemented workplace policy. Strangely, though, these programmes have a very, very solid track record of improving things.

I can tell you haven't worked at a tech company in a role where your productivity matters.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I'm sort of annoyed at your enthusiasm for supporting people who make soap out of babies :\

See, we both can make completely fabricated comments and post them as if they had or have any bearing whatsoever on the position or inclinations of the person we are commenting about.

I understand why you'd be leery of someone saying this:

She says Krzanich has told managers that their pay will be linked to their success in attaining diversity.

Because it sure sounds like a the kind of management that someone who has just taken Econ 101 would come up with.

But this:

Hudnell says that Intel is focused on educating its employees on the importance of diversity, listening to and addressing concerns, and putting into place tracking mechanisms. She says the company is running forums for the thousands of managers who do the hiring and promotions and create the environment in which Intel employees work. In these, they share and analyze detailed diversity data and discuss what needs to change, determine where the shortfalls are, and set firm goals. The company is planning to create dashboards on which employees can monitor progress. As well, there is a renewed focus on building a more inclusive culture, correcting the sources of unconscious bias, and enhancing mentoring and sponsorship programs.

Doesn't sound like that to me.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/09.html

 

[xthetenth]

Seriously, what a joke

Heavens forbid people actually expect their society to live up to the values it professes, and have the gall to want opportunity to be spread out so we don't massively underutilize the talents of people who aren't socioeconomic elites just so some people can keep feeling like special snowflakes.

What an awful world we'd have if the pool of talented labor had its size increased.

 

[Valantar]

I can tell you haven't worked at a tech company in a role where your productivity matters.

Just for the sake of curiosity: in what way does what I'm saying go against productivity?

Uh huh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/upshot/women-on-the-board-quotas-have-limited-success.html?_r=0

Your country made it law that 40% of women be on corporate boards... thats the government telling people who they have to hire. All right fine. I want 40% of all teachers in K-12 to be men, mandated by law!

No, it isn't. (Although I'm all for more male teachers, especially in the lower levels of the education system, as well as in healthcare and other female-dominated industries, and for certain sectors quotas can be useful.) It's the government doing its job, in other words attempting to level the playing field for its citizens. Business needs checks and balances too, not just government. I do however agree that a quota on women in company boards alone can be seen as an empty gesture which probably won't change much, but as part of a broader campaign to change people's mentality regarding who is best suited to what job (outside of job-specific qualifications), especially in managerial positions, it can be a useful tool. Still, there is also a limit to the amount of change that women on boards can implement, as they are after all stuck in the same male dominated corporate culture as everybody else.

 

[Valantar]

At my university the computer engineering college was still comprised of asian men. Maybe 3 out of ten were non-asian. Black and hispanic were totally not represented. Women were not represented.

So what is the solution to this, a career fair at high schools? Or maybe we should start portraying engineers as really cool enviable people in the media?

How about you get a more diverse group of people interested in these career paths rather than putting pressure on companies to take a chance on a candidate who isn't the best choice but has the most politically advantageous gender or skin color?

Absolutely. Change like this needs to happen in all stages of society, not just when people already have an education.

Heavens forbid people actually expect their society to live up to the values it professes, and have the gall to want opportunity to be spread out so we don't massively underutilize the talents of people who aren't socioeconomic elites just so some people can keep feeling like special snowflakes.

What an awful world we'd have if the pool of talented labor had its size increased.

+1