SRAM
outlined their commitments to pursue gender parity in the sport of cycling yesterday ahead of International Women's Day on Sunday, March 8th.
We spoke with SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg about why SRAM felt this was an important announcement to make and to find out what the company is truly doing to increase gender parity in cycling.
What are some of the challenges that you’ve had hiring women in the bike industry?
Our number one challenge would be engineering. Engineering is the number one position that we have at SRAM other than manufacturing positions in our factories. Frankly, there just aren't enough women graduates from the engineering programs.
We try to work with some of the universities that have good STEM programs to make women aware of what we do and get the ones that are graduating to consider SRAM first. But I think that’s number one issue we face today.
How many women are there currently working at your company?
I don’t know the exact number off the top of my head, but globally it’s about 40%.
What’s the most senior role that a woman holds at SRAM?
The most senior role at SRAM would be one of our Board of Directors, is Nicole Piasecki, a former executive at Boeing. As for someone that comes into work every day at SRAM, our Vice President of HR, Eileen Mulry, is a direct report of mine, and she would be the most senior woman.
How do you see this changing in the next couple years? Do you think we’ll see more women in more senior roles in the coming years?
We’re always trying to add more diversity to our team. We definitely try hard. We’ve made good changes, like requiring all interview candidate pools to have at least one woman in them. We’re making progress so I think it will change.
Have you done an analysis on pay at SRAM? Do you pay female employees an equal wage to their male counterparts for similar roles?
We do an internal review every year to make sure that we’re paying people appropriately and fairly and then every time we have an opening we do the same thing. We also don’t ask for past salary history as we felt this could perpetuate the problem if it was preexisting.
We pay people for the job not based on what they got paid before or what gender they are. I think we do a really good job of that.
How can we come together as an industry and create equality in it? How do we get more women working in the bike industry?
That’s a good question. Our theory would be, if we have more women working at SRAM, they’ll have better ideas of how to get more women riding bikes. So we start there, trying to make a difference with that.
What are your corporate policies at SRAM for women who want to take maternity leave?
We’re a global company and every country has different policies around maternity leave. Obviously we follow the local guidelines and laws and meet the minimum, but we try to do better than that.
I would say the US probably has one of the less generous maternity policies, so we do more than is required in the US. I’m sure we could do more. We have a SRAM Women’s Leadership Committee that helps us navigate that: what do the women at SRAM want, what helps them? We make our culture really open and when we have a good idea we try it.
How do you think that taking maternity leave can affect a woman’s trajectory through your company?
I personally think it has little to no impact. We have some awesome moms and they’re awesome at their job. We miss them when they’re gone and we’re happy when they’re back.
You’ve worked around the world, how do you see opportunities being different for women in North America compared to other places you have lived?
I spent a lot of time in China and I was the President of a pretty large business and half of my leadership team were women. Roughly half of the population of the rest of the team were women. I was talking to the women on my team and told them that we really struggle to do this in the US and yet here it seems so easy, what’s the difference? One of the women who reported to me said ‘Well women are half the population, why wouldn’t we be half the team?’ It was just so easy there.
I also worked in Germany for quite a while, and I worked in Switzerland for a fair amount of time. As far as women represented on teams I had there, I would say they were more like the US. I don’t the exact reason, but it’s clear women can do the job, so if they want to do it, why shouldn’t they?
I’ve read that you have three sons, how is the world they are growing up in different to the world you grew up in?
I think they’re probably growing up in a better, more open world. Unfortunately, it feels like sometimes it’s a little more dangerous world too though. But they don’t see colour, they don’t see man/woman as starkly as when I was raised, which is super cool. The school my oldest son went to in China, I think there were kids from 68 different countries, so they didn’t even think of colour or accents or any of that. They were just kids that played together.
To me, the coolest thing ever would be to if he and his five best friends back then, who are from five different countries, become the President of their country. That would be the path to world peace. Because they just see each other as people, they don’t see the differences. I think that would be pretty cool.
How do you think we can increase participation in women’s mountain bike racing?
I think that the funnel that feeds racing has to get bigger. We need more women mountain biking to get more women racing. For us, we have more pro women road cyclists that we sponsor than we have men that we sponsor. But the funnel is bigger. There are more women that ride road bikes than competitively mountain bike.
It’s that equation where we need more people feeding into the funnel. What we do, with Sara Jarrell, is we have the SRAM Women’s Program where we want to introduce women to mountain biking and then once they’re in it we help them with training clinics to help them get better, feel more comfortable, and have fun. Programs like that are good. I wish more people would do them.
I think NICA is another great example. That’s a great feeder for future women. Kate Courtney, one of our sponsored athletes, she got introduced to mountain biking through NICA. NICA has their GRIT program that we’re excited to be helping with. I think things like that are how we get more women on mountain bikes and then that eventually leads to more women racing mountain bikes.
How do you think we will start to have more equal pay for women athletes?
That’s something that we as an industry, we need to do it. We were pretty successful at helping make that happen at Crankworx but we need more actions like that.
What are your goals with the video that you're releasing on March 2nd and speaking about getting more women into the bike industry?
I think it takes all of us to make changes like this. Everyone benefits. It just feels like it makes so much sense, but it’s a real effort and we need to do it together.
Are you hoping that other bike brands and other manufacturers in the bike industry will follow your lead on this?
I don’t even know if we’re leading, but yeah for sure. I would love that. If all of us are doing it together, it has to have a bigger impact than 5 or 6 companies doing it. All of us are smarter than one of us and a critical mass can have a huge impact. It would be great if everyone did it.
1. Read this article
2. Go directly to the comments to read the dumpster fire
In the mean time I’ll just be busy throwing another SX shifter in the ocean.
Who do you think runs Shimano? Seriously curious?
I watch CNN and Bill Maher all the time, not because I like them, but I want to know how my opponent thinks.
No, but why I have I not fallen in love with you yet?
SHIT!!! Now I will never get a television show. Damn, damn it all to hell.
Now I'm not comparing SRAM to these companies, IDK how ethical they actually are, but probably not evil (like Google). However, whatever advertising/PR agency is consulting them all to be "woke" needs to be fired. Look at Gillettes stock after their disastrous "toxic masculinity" ad campaign. Look at the more recent Star Wars movies. The Marvel comics from about 7 years ago that tried to have SJW heroines. This philosophy doesn't sell product.
No one wants to be preached at. No one wants the company that makes their brakes to solve all the worlds problems. We want good products at a competitive price.
That's why people on PB are "pro" environment even though they buy new gear at a rate that would make the cell phone industry ejaculate with anticipation.
Same reason why everyone on Reddit is "pro HK" by posting supportive articles about Hong kong, but continue to use Reddit which gives a portion of it's profit to pro China.
Same reason everyone "loves Greta" and think that being on her side helps the environment, while they go on mindlessly consuming, travelling, and spending like they invented the concept.
It's all a farce.
Be clean, be kind, just don't buy bullshit when it's being peddled. Keep recycling just don't listen to little whiny kids with any level or respect.
@RoadStain Don't care, just think it's funny how a guy who's quick to let people know he's supposedly worked at an executive level... would "higher folks".
Word! My eyes literally roll right out of my head when I see this crap. This is nothing but women demanding to be put on an even higher pedestal where they don’t have to be as skilled or competent as male their counterparts but should be given jobs over them because (insert lame SJW nonsense here). I work in nursing and I listen to women complaining that their engineer husbands make more than they do. I always say “well I guess you should have gotten into engineering then eh”. Which then descends into a bunch of feminist nonsense where apples & oranges are somehow the same and the patriarchy blah blah blah. And then a lesbian coworker will try to tell you that she is more man than you because she tiled her bathroom floor.
My advice to anyone, not just women is this. If you want to earn more, don't have any kids, commit yourself to work at the expense of other areas of your life, and don't have qualms about shafting co workers. That's a good way to get on in your career and be wealthier in life.
If you don't want to do those things, just accept that you're never going to make a lot of chien.
Example - "Do you think that improving the employment and pay ratios of women to men in your company would help you to produce good brakes, or perhaps a dropper post with a basic level of reliability?"
The keyboard attack on pinkbike comments section on Race Face was awesome, and it was definitely noticed. You saw how sheepish race face was acting in the comments and how quick they were to reach out to individuals! Keep it coming.
Easily one of the worst products in cycling.
I think it's wrong to say it's unfair to men with a 'male equality' comment as it really puts women behind the curve in the long run. If anything, the lack of paternity leave in certain countries is potentially worse for women.
Imagine a system where a family gets 12 months of parental leave taken in 50/50 shifts between the mother and father. Probably better for both in terms of career and also better for both in terms of getting to spend some time with their child and contributing to the function of the family at home
We did see the unfortunate consequences of a delayed career and then the kids' mom playing catch up.
Also my initial comment was meant more tongue in cheek. But still the discussion of paternity leave only seems to be brought up when maternity leave is, and almost always seems to be an us against them situation, male vs female. Maybe it should be rebranded completely under family leave, taking the pa & ma out of it.
All fair points! Daycare is the killer here as well. It's like "do I work all day to pay that money for a stranger to raise my kid or not."
I totally agree that paternity leave should be part of this conversation as well. And it should be talked about in how it will benefit the careers of women.
I know. It's a similarly crazy thought.
But here's a forethought. Just maybe there is a correlation link between the higher rates of male suicide is due to that fact that more women are entering, what was the stereotypical male dominated workforce, leaving less jobs for ... wait for it.... Men. This can even also lead to relationship breakdowns due to males not being able to fulfill their duties as the provider of the family, or women who think they can do better.
You know some males might even go as far as saying that they prefer not to work with or train females colleges due to the "me too" movement has left them vulnerable to being subjected to an sexual harassment claims against them.
But then again those things wouldn't really happen in real life would they?
1."We do an internal review every year to make sure that we’re paying people appropriately and fairly and then every time we have an opening we do the same thing. We also don’t ask for past salary history as we felt this could perpetuate the problem if it was preexisting."
AKA - Doesn't matter if your a male, female, or other kin, we will for sure paying you below market value, GUARANTEED(but we're a bike company so we're totally hip and cool to work for).
2. "How do you think that taking maternity leave can affect a woman’s trajectory through your company?"
The fact that their trying to justify the state of their maternity leave as being better than what the US requires, but not even broaching the topic of paternity leave that would also include fathers, should tell you all you need to know.
3."Are you hoping that other bike brands and other manufacturers in the bike industry will follow your lead on this?
I don’t even know if we’re leading, but yeah for sure."
Well, I guess I have to give them some credit for being semi-self-aware.
I think you may be confusing Germany with your country and with my own - both of which have been exploiting falling wages.
Not infrequently we will have a person interview and ask them what they are wanting to get paid (notice I did not say EARN). In general, a new college grad will be delusional and throw out a number 50% high, women will in general give a low number.
Most folks are seriously at the mindset of "give me a job" even if I do not make what I want to make. Women however tend to really low ball themselves. All things (capability wise), no employer in their right mind pays someone more than they have to, more than they need to or more than then market will bear.
It is stunning the number of kids from college who get upset in their first day or two of "work" and get very upset they are not allowed to have their cell phone on their person. We have seriously had more people leave and never come back for just that reason (that at no facebook on company systems - it is simply blocked)
www.singletracks.com/uncategorized/newsflash-the-sport-of-mountain-biking-lacks-diversity
The push for being inclusive is such a uniquely first world white person problem. At the basic levels it's a necessary requirement for a fair and homogeneous society but at this level it's ridiculous.
I find all these "Let's Get X into Cycling" efforts really dumb. I just don't think you can socially engineer more black people to like mountain biking. I think you grow the sport by sharing sick youtube and twitter videos of people shredding on bikes, and that will motivate more people to shred on bikes.
Same thing with women. I just don't see a woman going "Wow, the logo is pink now, time to buy a mountain bike" or "Sram made a statement about women in the workplace, time buy new brakes."
Thought of another example are the movies Biker Boyz and Torque. Before those movies came out I saw and new only one black sport bike rider. After the movie there were many and they followed the biker gang protocols of the movie to a comical level.
Again I'm not for the forced diversity. Id rather see a more organic growth, one from awesome videos or word of mouth and friends talking. But I am not in the business and my paycheck doesn't depend on market growth. Those that do see a majority of the population as potential customers as soon as they can get sold that they want a bike.
Hmm I wonder what Reggie Miller & Elliot Jackson think about the subject.
What are they to do being attacked by women, people of color, religion, science, poor people, lgbtqs.
They are scared so they run to whatever far right personality is their favorite. Buying into the conspiracy theories feeling like they are an endangered species.
Me im not worried about a woman wanting equal pay that doesn't intimate or scare me.
Im not worried about a woman in the lead role of a star wars movie. Wtf really?
Im not worried about which bathroom a transsexual wants to use.
Im not worried about them suing me.
I am worried about some crazy f*ck with a gun thats been fed the lies and is angry and wanting to kill me or whatever group he seems to think endangers his existence or masculinity.
I am worried about dumb asses who watch other dumb f*cks like Alex Jones
and are convinced the parents of sandy hook murder victims are f*cking actors.
Resulting in them receiving death threats while they are mourning their murdered children.
Worried about alot of shit. Like a global pandemic.
Not worried women wanting equal pay.
Sorry its not high on my threat list.
www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
that's a good breakdown of the what and why.
Basically the issue is that people compare apples to oranges. All of mens pay vs ALL of womens pay, comes out in favor of men. But when you look at factors like do they have kids, schooling, experience, did they negotiate for a better wage, hours worked, and other factors then the real number shrivels into insignificance.
even this source, using the somewhat dishonest method of measuring the gap, reported that the disparity was closer to 82%. But again, that is ignoring a bunch of contributing factors. It comes down to details, and the MSM and progressive leftists hate details, data, stats, etx.
Is 2% on every dollar acceptable to you?
In 1918, women could not inherit property on the same terms as men. The Law of Property Act 1922 changed that and meant a husband and wife could inherit each other's property.
Legislation passed four years later meant women could finally hold and dispose of property on the same terms as men.
Women were unable to serve on a jury or as a magistrate until the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was passed. However, Juries would remained overwhelmingly male over the next 50 years before rules concerning jury qualification were reformed in the 1970s.
It wasn’t until 1975 that women could open a bank account in their own name. Single women still couldn't apply for a loan or credit card in their own name without a signature from their father, even if they earned more, as recently as the mid-Seventies.
Working women were also refused mortgages in their own right in the Seventies, unless they could secure the signature of a male guarantor.
A 2011 report, by The Institute for Public Policy Research, found evidence of discrimination against businesswomen by banks still existing today. It also found an unlawful denial of fair access to mortgages on the basis of pregnancy or maternity leave.
Women could be refused service for spending their own money in a pub up until a law change in 1982. In the 1970s women could legally be refused the right to go drink unaccompanied.
The Sex Discrimination Removal Act 1919 changed the law on women being disqualified from certain professions on the grounds of sex.
It gave women access to the legal profession and accountancy for the first time and meant they could also hold any civil or judicial office or post.
The first woman to be called to the Bar in England in 1922 and the first woman to be awarded the degree of Doctor of Civil Law in Oxford in 1923.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 made it illegal to discriminate against women in work, education and training.
A strike by 187 female workers at a Ford car factory in Dagenham in 1968 was instrumental in the passing of the 1970 Equal Pay Act. The machinists walked out and went on strike for three weeks in protest against their male colleagues earning 15 per cent more than them.
A 2017 report by the World Economic FORUM concluded it could still take another 100 years before the global equality gap between men and women disappears entirely.
In wasn't until 1929 that women became ‘persons’ in their own right under Canadian law following a ruling by the Privy Council after Canadian Magistrate Emily Murphy led the fight when lawyers challenged her right to pass sentence, arguing that as a woman she was not qualified to sit in the Senate of Canada.
Women were admitted to the London Stock Exchange for the first time in the institution’s history in 1973 following campaigning by women in the financial sector.
It wasn't until the introduction of the Contraceptive Pill, in the 1960s, that women could finally have "some" control over their own wombs.
The 1976 Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act provided legal protection to female victims of domestic violence, but it was not until 1991 that the House of Lords made rape in marriage a criminal offence in the UK. This finally allowing women the legal right to say "No" and have control of their own bodies.
In society & the workplace the playing field has always been skewed in favour of men, because in the past, men built the playing field. Well... Now women are building the playing field.
But hey... "This is discrimination" and "They're taking our jobs..."
And can still happen...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
You wasted all that time arguing with nobody. Congratulations.
Find anywhere where I claim women are "Taking our jobs" or anywhere that I claim men are discriminated against?
My only claim has been that women should not be promoted to higher positions based on their gender, and that any financial compensation has to be weighed against factors of employment and production and not of arbitrary social or gender classes.
Strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
Also try to show some understanding of how statements like, "I'll gladly give women 2 cents on every dollar I make if it means I can hit one in public and not be reprimanded", however that was meant to support your message, do not help in a discussion about equality of gender opportunity. Especially when stacked up against how a large proportion of women have had to deal with levels of abuse & control over the years.
Reading some of your comments I can gauge you are an intelligent person with an excellent ability to use language in a powerful way, so I know you will understand there are equally better ways of making your points whilst bearing in mind this is an open forum on a website accommodating a high proportion younger users.
I chose not to make references to other comments that directed towards other members as it was quite clear both parties had equal disregard for Pinkbike terms and conditions when engaging each other.
If that is distasteful to anyone, there are plenty of other companies selling bike parts too purchase from, or work for.
I would postulate those other businesses are moving forward with a similar view.
I really don't understand what the point of your whole post was, or how it remotely pertained to the topic at hand.
And again, nothing wrong with creating equal opportunities, but there's a huge issue with creating equal outcomes. Show me somewhere in modern society (outside the military) where women are actively restricted from engaging or earning at the level of their male counterparts, solely due to their gender, and I'll join you in their condemnation.
Otherwise it just seems like you made a softball effort to change the discussion.
In more recent years the door has been opened for women to enter the engineering domain thanks to better guidance & a change of attitude in workplaces, and even more recently the cycling side of engineering & the wider sport. But just because the door is open it doesn't mean they know the door is even there.
I gave an example, in a previous Sram article, of how that has differed for 2 generations of my family within the highest profile of motorsport, which has been dominate by males forever. It took 2 generations for those opportunities to change despite the fact our family (dad/uncles) had been involved in World Rally since the 1960s & have "connections" in the wider motorsport family.
Personally I work in the cycling sector with boys and girls ages 7-15 years old & when we explain to them the opportunities available today within cycling, 99 out of 100 would never have though a career path available or even exists. So it is clear that initiatives that encourage greater gender participation are truly needed, despite the door being open.
If you do not see the relevance of the earlier information in response to your posts, you need to look harder.
"In more recent years the door has been opened for women to enter the engineering domain thanks to better guidance & a change of attitude in workplaces, and even more recently the cycling side of engineering & the wider sport. But just because the door is open it doesn't mean they know the door is even there."
Exactly, which is why when you look at the data provided for more "egalitarian" countries that promote greater social equity between genders, they see a trend of women STILL avoiding STEM fields in favor other pursuits. Obviously the option should be presented to them and encouraged, but to say that the lack of women participating in STEM fields is BECAUSE of years of male dominance, is again, intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate.
I just see more guys wanting to work for a cycling manufacturer, so if you get 50/1 male to female applicants, it seems very very unfair to hire 50/50 men and women.
I'm pretty sure schools get five times as many women applying to be teachers, so hiring 50/50 in that field seems just as flawed, just on the inverse.
a) "Well women are half the population, why wouldn’t we be half the team?’"
b) "It’s clear women can do the job, so if they want to do it, why shouldn’t they?"
Those of you who can truly read between the lines will understand why these positions, even though they are seen by Ken as being complementary, are in fact the real sticking point. As @SmashySmashy said on the previous Sram story...
"defining the problems that require societal intervention, and those that are driven by individual choice and talents" is the problem.....
A) and B) above, in no way guarantee a consensus to that problem. If those at the forefront do not see how these two positions are inconsistent, what hope has anyone got of achieving any kind of consensus?
Bugger.
I wish SRAM the best and hope they do well in all of their endeavors, and I enjoy using their products.
explain exactly what the benefit to society is by promoting people based on their genitalia/sexual orientation/religion/ethnicity?
So with that strawman torn down I'll focus on what I think SRAM is really getting at.
Let's say you want to build a team to accomplish a highly skilled and specialized task. The world as a whole contains a limited pool of resources (humans good at the task). You're competing with other businesses to hire talent. One day you take a look around your industry and see that it's dominated by a single demographic. Let's say for the sake of argument that this single demographic represents 40% of the population of the potential work force.
So you go asking around other demographics and ask why they aren't participating in the industry, and you get answers like, "we don't feel welcome", "we aren't paid the same for the same work", "that's not what we do".
From my point of view, you, as a business, can easily address the first two answers and immediately have a competitive advantage by having a larger pool of potential talent. That's why do you what SRAM claim it wants to do.
Once you realize the "we aren't paid the same for the same work" is a farce, you're left with "we don't feel welcome" (Ok, but very little in the article was about making the industry more welcoming, but rather more equitable for females already in it).
and "that's not what we do" which is another underlying issue of why there are so little women in STEM fields.
Let me ask you another question, If you have a company that produces a certain product, and quality of product is paramount, why would you care what ethnicity/gender/creed your work force is?
Wouldn't it serve everyone (the business, the employees, the consumers) to have the best possible product produced? If yes, then that means that the quality of the employee is derived solely on their contribution to the company. Which is typically the case. SO, assuming that SRAM's main focus is quality of products, and that there are no barriers to entry for any qualified applicants on the basis of race/gender/creed, WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
If you think that women need to be more present in the SRAM family, then you either think they turn away good talent on the basis of it's femininity, or you believe they should start instituting quotas.
SRAM already provides equal wages for men and women based on their qualifications and work performed, as does 99% of companies operating today, if not, then we'll wait for the well deserved lawsuits to flow in. But the lack of said lawsuits, goes to show that at a detailed level, the claims of "not paid the same for the same work", doesn't hold up.
-If you have a company that produces a certain product, and quality of product is paramount, why would you care what ethnicity/gender/creed your work force is?
Technically you don't. But if your work force doesn't reflect the demographics of your qualified applicant pool, you have to ask yourself why that is. It could be a lot things, and it could lead to some very difficult discussions with well meaning people, but you have have them.
Then you check if your qualified applicant pool reflects the available talent pipeline. If it doesn't again, you ask yourself why that is. If the local university is graduating 40%-30%-30% (to keep it simple) of demographics groups A, B, and C, and your applicant pool was 80%-10%-10%. Maybe additional outreach is needed to break through old perceptions. Maybe there's nothing to be done. But I promise you it's worth trying, if only to have a shot at the deep pool of talent.
-Wouldn't it serve everyone (the business, the employees, the consumers) to have the best possible product produced?
Absolutely. No one has disputed that or asked SRAM to sacrifice quality.
-If yes, then that means that the quality of the employee is derived solely on their contribution to the company. Which is typically the case.
Agreed. But there many things that contribute to quality products that get overlooked. One thing I see a lot in my field is that having people from diverse -geographic- backgrounds can be incredibly valuable. People from different (often) poorer parts of the world, grew up dealing with different types of infrastructure and as a matter of course had to come up with very clever solutions to deal it (I work in water resources). Coming out of school and socially, very few of these candidates were in my immediate network (middle class white dudes). It takes a lot of effort to reach out to them and encourage them to apply to jobs. Only a small fraction are qualified. Those that are *and* want the job end up really driving our innovations and bring unique ideas to the table that no one else in the team could have thought. That upfront investment is *well* work it.
-SO, assuming that SRAM's main focus is quality of products, and that there are no barriers to entry for any qualified applicants on the basis of race/gender/creed, WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
I trust that the CEO knows his business better than I do. So if he says he needs to up the outreach to attract a more diverse candidate pool, I'll believe him.
But saying that the lack of diversity is BECAUSE of a limited acceptance of certain races/genders/creeds, is just intellectually dishonest and gets us nowhere.
I agree with your first paragraph. Disagree with the second, but maybe I don't understand. What is intellectually dishonest about trying to counteract overt or even subconscious bias?
Just one article (and a good summary of the issue) but google 'Unconscious Bias discredited and there are 00s of creddible results (FT, NYTimes, WSJ, PsychologyToday etc.)
There were so, so many weighted obvious pairs that I found myself predicting what was going on under the test; and if the participant can read what is going on like a book, you have to ask legitimate questions about whether you are getting truly honest results.
However, be careful, subconscious bias has not been discredited, the test has been discredited. The fact that the test may not be a good predictor of subconscious bias does not mean that it does not exist.
Trust me, I am a white guy, living in Japan for a quarter of a century.
I hit it squarely in the face every day.
I've been to Japan, and I have friends who live and work there, like you. I think it's a wonderful country, and the people are so welcoming (this coming from an Irishman!), but I've also heard stories about the difficulties my friends have encountered in their lives there (especially after they left Japan and returned home). I'm sure you have plenty of examples of being treated unfairly, just as they did (try being a highly-regarded, female, Caucasian engineering manager and getting passed over for a promotion in favor of your own subordinate).
The example above aside, many of their experiences seem to be due to the different societal norms there and the insular nature of the people, and not the result of any individual prejudice like the IAT is supposed to measure. I don't think it's correct to conflate the two in the way you did.
If we don't have a test for it, how can we say it exists?
God, anyone?
But, being more serious, and keeping it really simple, I give to you two very, very obvious simple examples of subconscious bias...to me it is a no-brainer that there is subconscious (implicit) bias here in Japan; 25 years of daily experience does not need a half-arsed test in Harvard to prove its existence.
In all of the examples. everyone is speaking exclusively in Japanese
Me: (Talking in Japanese in a supermarket to one of the staff in one of the aisles) Excuse me, can you tell me which aisle the flour is in please?
Staff: (In Japanese) Ah, er, sorry, I don't speak English.
Me: (Talking to a group of Japanese middle aged active boomers) So, when I was making my daughter's packed lunch today..
Various members of the group: You what? Didn't your wife do it?
I would be open to hearing anyone's suggestions as to how they could explain daily instances like this to me without requiring the use of bias, conscious or implicit.
Furthermore, the problem with the Harvard tests is that individuals provide differing scores on different days, suggesting the that test has a reciprocity problem, agreed, however there are a million and one other studies that confirm implicit bias in action.
Try this:
fullfact.org/economy/job-applicants-ethnic-minority-sounding-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview
or this:
www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/24/study-finds-faculty-members-are-more-likely-respond-white-males-others
or this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483
or this:
psmag.com/economics/black-male-faces-3571
or this:
www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/01/human-brain-is-predisposed-to-negative-stereotypes-new-study-suggests
So, yes, that one work has been discreditied, however the body of evidence still exists. The problem is not that implicit bias doesn't exist, it is that that test is ill conceived.
I don't think those examples meet the definition of unconscious bias. Unconscious bias is when you prejudice against someone without thinking about it. They do meet the criteria for bias, but we're not talking about overt bias. I think your examples are more better explained by cultural norms in Japan:
1) The girl probably incorrectly assumed you didn't speak Japanese, panicked and didn't hear what you said. I've had this exact same experience in Japan too, and in Spain. I attribute it to people weighing up the likelihood of their various options to help- sometimes just admitting you don't speak the presumed language of the person asking is the best choice. You need to take into account the other person's desire not to be embarrassed too, especially in a country like Japan.
2) Again, it's more likely this was a cultural thing- Japanese culture is still very much based on traditional gender roles. Or maybe they were just making fun of you a little bit.
I don't have time to read all of them just now, but I will say this (and come back to you when I have read them all): The problem with these studies (by and large) is the same as the IAP paper- a clear lack of rigorous scientific method. These papers will all have been through the same faulty peer-review process and opaque research practices. The experiments need to be re-run, using the correct methods before we can begin to conclude anything from them. Earlier papers have been called 'theories in search of evidence' and that's how I view research such as those above- the numbers will often have been massaged and the statements they contain exaggerated in order to increase their impact and potential for publication. They cannot be trusted.
pushing perfectly compentent women engineers out of technical roles and into design/product management/people management. "you're so good with people, you'd make a good manager" "don't you think you'd like to be involved in the visual design?"
talking over women at meetings
bs excuses about how a qualified female candidate is not the "right fit for a role". Or I don't think she'll fit "our culture".
asking women to take notes in a meeting, while not reciprocating to men
same thing with asking women to order lunch
30+ year old professional women called "girls"
I know of at least one incident of outright sexual harrasment at every place I've worked, and of the course the perpetrator of the most egregious example I know about (which was really, really bad) is now a VP at another company.
Encouraging perfectly compentent engineers to take promotions from technical roles into design/product management/people management. "You have great knowledge of the product and customers, you'd make a great leader and mentor" "We have a problem in an area you're not very familiar with, but we think you could really deliver"
talking over women at meetings... is done predominantly by other women. While the men watch, aghast.
bs excuses about how a qualified female candidate is not the "right fit for a role". Or I don't think she'll fit "our culture". This is the discussion that has taken place time and time again. An incident I will always remember following an interview de-briefing was when the sole sticking point for an otherwise outstanding male candidate were questions about their fit - due to what was termed a "tendency to dominate". A room full of engineers spent 40 minutes debating this guys assertiveness, and eviserating his character- having observed him for an hour at most. Ultimately it was decided he should be offered the job, (under protest from several HR representatives). I was so glad for they candidate when I heard that he accepted a better offer elsewhere.
asking women to take notes in a meeting, while not reciprocating to men. Because in my experience we're usually asked to arrange the furniture beforehand.
same thing with asking women to order lunch. Managers typically do that, irrespective of their sex.
30+ year old professional women called "girls". And no senior woman has ever referred to a group of men as 'boys'? What kind of a sheltered life do you lead?
All of the above is common human behaviour. Yes, it *can* be done with malice to undermine people, as an insidious form of bully but almost always is just how people interact in friendly, collaborative relationships.
I know of at least one incident of outright sexual harrasment at every place I've worked, and of the course the perpetrator of the most egregious example I know about (which was really, really bad) is now a VP at another company. Sexual haraassment is not caused by bias. It's perpetrated for entirely selfish reasons by terrible people, be they male or female.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14
Why is that of such concern to so many people (or rather, the men/boys commenting here)? The only reason to be concerned about it is if you feel threatened. The only reason to feel threatened is because you don't have enough self confidence (or you lack skills/ability). Anyone who's worked in a real life workplace should understand that a) this disparity is often apparent and b) the workplace is better where/when it's lessened.
Get over it, boys, and applaud a company's effort in improving things.
So when they start saying they will go over and above the law, which plainly states to treat people fairly and start talking about discriminating against men it sets off alarm bells to people that assume this was a fair environment in the first place that is now seeing a shift from a 50/50 equal opportunity employer to something more discriminatory rather than less.
There's also people that are threatened by women not representing and having the same needs as them. I feel like these folks are pretty easy to spot...
The majority seem concerned with "Reverse discrimination" which seems to be implicated heavily every time these press releases come out.
The only question that needs to be asked to SRAM is : "It's law to treat genders/races equally, why the **** weren't you? and are you planning on reporting yourself to the proper investigative bodies to make sure this is remedied in the future?"
I hope that answers your question.
I never said women are inferior, and I never would. But it is basic statistics. If you mandate 50:50 between the sexes, in an industry that is 10:1 male: female (a not unreasonable guess for mtb or STEM fields) then assuming a similar distribution of talent between the 2 groups you *will* have to lower your standards in order to accept the weaker candidates from the smaller pool of suitable female applicants to meet your quota. You are also deliberately filtering out more qualified male candidates in order to achieve your highly dubious egalitarianism. How that is not discriminatory.
what is happening is a company have realised that there is a potential pool of talent that, for whatever reason, tend to look to different industries for jobs/careers. all they are doing is saying, "hang on, we are a profitable company, why don't we invest some of that profit and see if we can take the lead on this and make this a more attractive place to work for everybody. And if we make a statement of our intentions we'll also benefit from some positive PR"
I think some people get so emotional over something they perceive as unfair without pausing for breath and thinking about what is actually going on.
I'm sure a lot of people here share my hesitation to buy their products now. I was on the verge of purhasing a new Lyrik and set of Code RSCs, but I'll have to re-evaluate those purchases in light of this cluster f*ck.
I don't understand what the complaint is about "redistributing money given to them" isn't that literally how money works?
that last statement is pretty pathetic btw. can you honestly imagine explaining that to someone in real life "why did you get fox?" "i wanted SRAM but they work with women"
I'm saying that if these leader believe so much in what they're doing then why aren't they investing out of their own pocket, instead of re-distributing the money given to them by their customers for better products to satisfy personal/ political preferences?
A corporately responsible company would ensure their existing customers are satisfied sufficiently to remain customers of the brand, while growing their customer base. The approach here seems to be to burn a large swathe of their existing customers in the hopes of appealing to new ones.
Well fortunately I don't have to explain it that way. That's not my gripe, nor is it the the reasonable objections of the majority here who oppose these announcements. You really have to stop framing it as being a problem with women- you risk looking like an idiot, incapable of listening and considering what you're being told and if you continue to do so you'll never understand the double standard at play here, and the injustice of what SRAM are implementing. I'm not against SRAM for supporting women, and I would actively go out of my way to purchase from a brand that supports women in a meaningful way. But I will not purchase from a company that exploits their so-called virtue in this way and aligns itself with an ignorant, superficial and highly divisive ideology.
maybe they were naive and thought that trying to appeal to more women wouldn't piss off so many men. although I'm willing to bet that a few outspoken people on a forum do not constitute 'large swathes' of their existing market.
I'm obviously not getting through to you that there is no injustice here - and your repeated assertions that there is is what leads me to make my own assumptions as to the real reason why people like you are so worked up over this.
The real reason is the reason I already stated- there's a double standard at play here that's prejudicial, discriminatory and unjust. Just because you agree with the stated end goal does not automatically mean you should agree with how it is achieved. There are manifest, destructive consequences to the tactics SRAM and others before them have utilised to address a very undefined and poorly understood problem that are being ignored. And people like you enable them by shouting down anyone who tries to raise reasonable objections on highlight those consequences as sexist women-haters and what-have-you. They're depending on the ignorance of sheep-le to push through their agenda; It's their motives you should be concerned about. I hope in time you understand that and realise what a fool you're being taken for.
We all know what you're doing. It's just the false indignancy of someone who knows their arguments don't hold up under scrutiny in an honest discussion.
Bitching and chewing that there isn't enough female workforce to employ, or customers to sell product to, when you've done exactly 0 to appeal to that demographic in 40 years is nonsense. Is Barbie bitching not enough boys are playing with Barbies? It's ridiculous, a product marketed and designed for one sex disproportionately will see that represented in it's clientele. That's an outrageously easy fix in cycling, easier than Barbies, it should have happened 10 years ago and they would be reaping the rewards today. It's mainly marketing and community outreach, it's stuff they are already doing but they choose to focus on men. That's a SRAM/Industry problem.
Hiring quotas based on gender and race are illegal. They are basically admitting to having done that in the past, and want to try and fix it by doing it again but the other direction to make it even-Steven. This is not a solution, and it's absolutely guaranteed to create resentment between the sexes in the workplace.
This virtue signalling stuff should not be applauded, for instance if they were really into this whole "progressive awesome company" schtick they are trying to sell with a press release they would have taken the Maternity leave policy deemed best and implemented it company wide, instead they do slightly better than the bare minimum with absolutely no examples as to how.
But this shitshow right here? No one wins this way. Giving up as you did just leads to inertia and nothing gets aired out or resolved.
This may be a bad question to ask, but where is your courage? You say you're for a better world but you won't do anything for it personally. Is it any wonder people like me think people like you are just in it for the feels and dopamine hit that comes from being validated by a bunch of f*cking likes.
Secondly, "it's healthy for the workplace and society as a whole to provide women with as much opportunity as possible." Have you ever heard the saying "Too much of a good thing is bad for you"? That applies in spades here. How much opportunity is too much opportunity? As in, how many resources and how much time should we as a society put into giving women as much opportunity as possible? Especially as they don't seem to be making making much of the opportunities they've been given to date. Could it simply be that women aren't men, and have their own ideals and interests? Are there not other problems that would benefit immensely from that same time and those same resources that affect everyone, and not just a select few?
As Ken himself points out, the pool of qualified female engineers is small compared with males. (So much for your theory of identifying un-tapped talent. Besides, in the current political climate female engineers are being snapped up and are out-earning their male counterparts by 20-25% at every level). Which means you quickly run out of quality female engineers relative to male ones, and then you're into just average or below before you've even got below above average with the male engineers. Mandating a 50:50 split means that those below average female engineers would then have to be taken on to off-set the better male ones, or neither get hired. I've actually been in post-interview meetings where this very discussion took place (though thankfully wasn't implemented).
This was the press release that preceded the interview above: It's all there in the first paragraph.
And they're not looking solely to attract female candidates. They're mandating that females are given opportunities that are not afforded to men. From the above: "We’ve made good changes, like requiring all interview candidate pools to have at least one woman in them." I'd wager they're fine with candidate pools with no men though. So much for gender parity. You might argue that they get overwhelmingly male applicants, so I'm not making much sense, but my stance on this is that there is 1 rule for women and a different rule for men. They're being treat differently based only on their sex; Which, any way you cut it is the definition of discrimination. A better rule would be that all candidate pools are required to be represented by both genders. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but this stuff matters. Laws and rules which only benefit individuals that belong to favored groups are by and large not good for society. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is that rules such as these should seek to benefit all society, and not just a select few groups- The example being child protection laws. We were all children once, and they are arguably our most vulnerable citizens, so it makes sense to afford them more protection under the law, and to punish those who commit crimes against them more severely than they would be for committing those same crimes against adults.
With that said, how can you not at least consider the possibility that this method SRAM are implementing is offensive to women and creates a double standard, where adults from a favored group are seen as requiring special effort in order to earn what another group has *based solely on an immutable characteristic? How condescending is that?
But then this company has basically marketed itself to its position of dominance and why change a winning formula.
There was a time when MTB was default "anti-establishment" - look at how far and fast that worm has turned...
A: "We think the SRAM brand is great and want to make it better."
and to think I studied fem theory thirty years ago and this is what we got, and now Trump is president, gawd we are so f*cked.
That 'female' in the second photo has bigger biceps than 90% of the male population
*Ooh, I know.*
Tektro, that's my final answer!