Tag Archives: Diversity
FILE PHOTO: The Intel logo is shown at E3, the world’s largest video game industry convention in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 12, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Intel Corp has increased the ratio of women and African-Americans in its workforce after three years of a high-profile effort to improve diversity, the U.S. microchip maker said in a report released on Monday.
Intel still lags behind several large U.S. technology companies in terms of women and ahead of many for African Americans and Hispanics, the report showed. Chronic underrepresentation of minorities has been a source of concern for years at tech companies.
Overall, women comprised 26.8 percent of Intel’s U.S. workforce in 2018, up from 24.7 percent in 2015. Women in leadership positions grew to 20.7 percent from 17.7 percent.
The percentage of African Americans at Intel has risen to nearly 5 percent from 3.5 percent in 2015 and Hispanics rose to 9.2 percent from 8.3 percent.
“Although we are among the leaders in African American representation in the tech industry, we are still not satisfied,” Barbara Whye, Intel’s chief diversity and inclusion officer said by email. The company will continue to work with historically black colleges and the Oakland Unified School District in California, she added.
Without providing figures, Intel said it had reached “full representation” two years ahead of its goal based on skilled minorities in the available workforce.
In 2015, Intel established a $ 300 million fund to be used by 2020 to improve diversity. Whites make up 46.2 percent of the workforce at the company, and Asians 38.9 percent, according to Intel.
Intel’s African American 2018 representation was better than at Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc, and Microsoft Corp, according to the companies’ latest data.
But its female representation was behind Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon.com Inc, Apple Inc , and only ahead of Microsoft.
Reporting By Jane Lanhee Lee; Editing by Richard Chang
Why are so many companies (i.e. so many top executives) embracing a strategy that’s so obviously unproductive and which employees almost universally dislike?
I originally assumed the continued growth of open plan offices (now around 70% of all offices in the U.S.) was a victory of biz-blab over science–the corporate equivalent of anti-vaccination and climate change denial. However, since open plan offices are so obviously stupid, I’ve concluded there must be something deeper at work here–a hidden agenda.
What could it be?
A clue to this hidden agenda may lie in the undeniable fact that while executives want their employees to work in these open plan environments, they almost always secure private offices for themselves.
Another clue may lie in the way that the growth in open plan offices matches declines in work-from-home policies, private offices, and cubicle offices, all three of which offer varying levels of privacy for regular employees which open plan offices totally lack.
The unifying theme is that executives want employees to remain physically visible and constantly on display while simultaneously retaining their own right to remain invisible. This desire must be something that’s highly valuable to top management for them to be willing to pay such a huge tax in productivity and morale.
I’m not talking about a conspiracy. Nobody got together, twirled their metaphorical mustaches, and with a “brou-ha-ha-ha” decided to stick it to their employees. No, what’s operating here is something more subconscious, like confirmation bias. It’s a cultural thing and therefore largely unexamined, like most hidden agendas.
So, then, what deep need does the open plan office serve?
One obvious answer is the need to control the behavior of others–a need to which executives (who are often quite insecure about their ability to lead) are particularly susceptible.
However, while it is no doubt easier to control people when you can constantly look over their shoulders, that kind of monitoring can be done electronically. Since employees have no privacy rights, there’s nothing to stop companies from monitoring their behavior online. Big Brother doesn’t need to be physically present to stick his nose in your personal business.
If the deeper need is not a desire to control behavior, what could it be? Put another way, what benefit to executives get from making their employees physically visible while retaining the right to remain themselves invisible?
A well-documented effect of open plan offices is that constant visibility puts women at a disadvantage by forcing them to expend extra energy focusing on their physical appearance. However, it’s not just women who suffer from being forced into a fishbowl. Open plan environments also put at disadvantage those employees who are overweight, disabled, or in any way fail to conform to American standards of conventional attractiveness, i.e.young, thin, and light-skinned.
For example, open plan offices are vehemently hostile to older workers (Gen-X and above) because as one ages, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve that cultural standard of conventional attractiveness.
Furthermore, some elements of open plan designs–such the ubiquitous workplace playground slide–are specifically intended to humiliate older workers. To a 20-year-old, using playground slide is merely embarrassing; to a 40-year-old it’s actively humiliating; to a 60-year-old, it’s a recipe for chiropractic appointment.
Rather than attracting millennials, open plan offices help top management eliminate or disempower workers who aren’t young, conventionally-attractive, generally light-skinned and male.–the exact demographic from whence sprang the majority of top managers. While such environments also tolerate young, conventionally-attractive females, the fishbowl-like characteristic of open plan offices guarantees that they’ll kept off-balance and “in their place” by being put constantly on display.
Seen this way, the open plan office, far from being a forward-looking vehicle to create collaboration and innovation, are actually only a manifestation of a traditional 20th century business culture which favors the dominance of older, light-skinned males, a dominance that expresses itself in everything from the demographics of Fortune 500 C-suites to the investment choices of venture capitalists.
That open plan offices tend to reinforce the patriarchy seems less surprising when you consider that the original concept of the open plan office dates not from the so-called “information age” but from the early years of 20th century, when companies–to increase paper-pushing efficiency–started arranging office workers’ desks inside large rooms called “bullpens.”
Far from being a modern invention, open plan offices have been around for nearly 100 years. Within that history, companies have experimented with other workplace designs like private offices, cubicles, and telecommuting. Those experiments, however, fallen out of favor because those experiments gave employees more privacy, which was an assault on the status quo.
Companies have continued to embraced open plan designs not because they make employees more productive (they don’t) and not because employees find them inspiring places to work (they don’t) but because open plan offices reinforce the status quo–the same status quo that’s kept women and minorities out of positions of power, and that favors a younger, cheaper, more malleable workforce that’s less likely to challenge the dominance of the traditional powers-that-be.