|
One big factor at play here is how insidious small effects can tend to compound to a degree you wouldn't expect. For example: take this classic study: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/papers/male_female.pdf. TL:DR: if you bias performance evaluations by a single percentage point in favor of men (which lands comfortably within unconscious bias thresholds), and promote solely based on these scores, you can easily wind up with a corporate structure that has a 65/35 split at the higher levels. What I'm getting at is: the amount of bias required to create unfairness at the systemic level is shockingly low. That's why the large-scale statistics are so important, and focusing on stuff like "women are just not assertive enough" is a waste of time.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
SpaceClown posted:Interesting that I hadn't thought of this when the concept of "straw that broke the camels back" is something near and dear to me. I don't think you quite got the point. This is not about identifying the cause. The conclusion to be gathered here is that even if you find, track and correct the causes of the wage gap, the end result is inherently unstable, and unless you maintain continuous fairness monitoring and training, you'll be inevitably back to square one eventually. To make matters worse, these stats only make sense on a large scale. So unless a company is large enough (at least a few thousand employees), there is no measurable way to determine if it's being unfairly biased or not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 07:23
|
|