Apple Updates Corporate Bylaws on Diversity Following Criticism Over Lack of Female Leaders

[Rogifan]

Maybe the courts should force Apple to hire a Monitorship to sit in the boardroom and keep an eye on proceedings to see if this is happening. They could hold private meetings with Jony and Eddy and others and charge high hourly rates.

The DOJ should get right on that.

 

[sransari]

They should be the best. All the rest is irrelevant.

See my earlier post #11 at the beginning of this thread. The "best man for the job" model is correct, however, determining the best man for the job is sometimes complex, and socioeconomic and minority status should be considered in determining the best person for the job. As previously mentioned, I oppose government mandates that control business decisions with regard to hiring decisions, so businesses who recognize the business value of diversity would come out on top over those who do not recognize the value of diversity.

 

[Rogifan]

I suppose I read the same article as you did, but somehow I understood it differently.

Apple never hires the most qualified person. They hire the most qualified person who applies for the job, as every reasonable company does. For every employee at Apple, there are millions who didn't apply for the job. Now Apple states that they want to encourage more women and members of minorities to apply for jobs. As a result, it will happen more often that the most qualified person who applies is a woman or belongs to a minority.

Do we have evidence that Apple's recruiting process is resulting in lack of female or minority candidates for consideration? One could argue that Apple changing it it's bylaws is admitting this, but it could be just to pacify an activist investor group.

 

[Eraserhead]

OMG you are delussional and putting words in my mouth!

Where did I say same upbringing?
Where did I say same experience?

You can easily have two people with different upbringings, backgrounds, and schooling both be extremely experienced and, OH MY GOD, not a woman!

You are clearly missing the point.

Either women are the same as men on average, in which case you'd expect the numbers on boards to reflect the numbers in society just like you'd expect it to based on hair or eye colour by the law of large numbers. Alternatively women are different from men, in which case having a female perspective will improve decision making by increasing the diversity of opinions on the board.

Regardless over a large enough group the number of women and men on boards should be around 50:50.

----------

They should be the best. All the rest is irrelevant.

I agree. That's why you have to make an effort to counteract societies inbuilt bias.

 

[Boston007]

See my earlier post #11 at the beginning of this thread. The "best man for the job" model is correct, however, determining the best man for the job is sometimes complex, and socioeconomic and minority status should be considered in determining the best person for the job. As previously mentioned, I oppose government mandates that control business decisions with regard to hiring decisions, so businesses who recognize the business value of diversity would come out on top over those who do not recognize the value of diversity.

So let the company internals decide who is a best fit for THEIR company.

Government involvement is terrible.

The best people will want to work for companies where the best people get hired.

It's pretty simple.

 

[KdParker]

Give me a break! Get the best...if it's all white men...so be it!

That is the point,

If you 'get the best' it is highly unlikely that they will be all white males, therefore they are raising the question.

 

[sransari]

So let the company internals decide who is a best fit for THEIR company.

Government involvement is terrible.

The best people will want to work for companies where the best people get hired.

It's pretty simple.

Right that's what i've been saying. Let businesses choose their own hiring method without involving government. I'm saying that a good business will recognize the value of diversity, so there is no need for governments to push the issue. Governments should not bar businesses from using quotas if they choose to do so, and similarly, governments should not mandate quotas.

I do think its good that stockholders are demanding diversity, since I believe diversity is good for business, and stockholders are therefore demanding good business practices from apple. That's how free market prevails.

 

[KdParker]

So let the company internals decide who is a best fit for THEIR company.

Government involvement is terrible.

The best people will want to work for companies where the best people get hired.

It's pretty simple.

If the government didn't get involved in promoting a fair and level playing field then we would still have slavery and child labor in this country.

 

[kingtj]

Yep... and this can't be stressed enough!

The entire "diversity in the workplace" push is SO misguided. I'd love to see it completely abolished.

The fact is, there's really no good reason to argue it's an issue or concern, unless you're part of a special interest group that wants to cry "discrimination!" when it feels not enough of the demographic it champions gets hired for certain jobs.

If you could prove a business was willfully turning away QUALIFIED candidates based on race, gender or ethnicity? THEN you'd have actual discrimination to complain about. But government pressuring businesses to meet "quotas"? NEVER a good idea.

diversity for diversity's sake is always a bad idea

 

[Zombie Acorn]

An industry created by white males, is run by white males?

The serious question here is why we aren't pushing more women into technology/computer science fields so that they can beat out the male colleagues. Marissa Mayer heads Yahoo, so its not impossible.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

If the government didn't get involved in promoting a fair and level playing field then we would still have slavery and child labor in this country.

Congratulations, government stopped the worst abuses. Now maybe it can let people be free to make their own mundane day to day decisions, like hiring the most qualified candidates.

 

[macpro2000]

That is the point,

If you 'get the best' it is highly unlikely that they will be all white males, therefore they are raising the question.

Not necessarily.

 

[MyMac1976]

Tim Cook needs to focus on SHAREHOLDER VALUE and get the dismal stock performance corrected.

I'd rather them focus on making good products than focus on the shareholder that way 30 years from now when I need money it's there. American businesses should focus less on the share holder and more on the product Jobs told share holders to take a long walk off a short pier that's what Cook ought to be doing now.

 

[gnasher729]

Do we have evidence that Apple's recruiting process is resulting in lack of female or minority candidates for consideration? One could argue that Apple changing it it's bylaws is admitting this, but it could be just to pacify an activist investor group.

Of course. The fact that Apple updates its corporate bylaws is evidence. You know the difference between evidence and proof? On the other hand, I cannot see any evidence that this is done to pacify any activist investor group.

 

[thekeyring]

Tim Cook needs to focus on SHAREHOLDER VALUE and get the dismal stock performance corrected.

You sound like a shareholder, not an Apple fan.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Either women are the same as men on average, in which case you'd expect the numbers on boards to reflect the numbers in society just like you'd expect it to based on hair or eye colour by the law of large numbers. .

In that case, as a redhead, I want them to consider hair color as a qualification for their board, too. Because none of the senior members of Apple are gingers.

 

[gnasher729]

You sound like a shareholder, not an Apple fan.

More like a short term shareholder.

Everyone with a bit of brain knows that Steve Jobs didn't give a **** about what is called "shareholder value", and that ended up being the biggest reason why he created so much of it.

Many people claim that short term stock price equals "shareholder value", and that companies should concentrate on that. Interestingly, (1) most companies don't actually have anything in their founding documents that say this, (2) it sounds much more reasonable to concentrate on actions that create long term high stock price, and (3) concentrating on short term share price is often the cause of many decisions that have a short term advantage but long term disadvantages, so the companies concentrating on "shareholder value" lose out.

(And what makes this absurd is that the people who benefit from a high stock price are those share holders who are selling. Why would a company care about people selling its stock? That's absurd).

 

[calaverasgrande]

Proof that free markets combat inequality better than government legislation.

actually not, it's proof that Apple will play CYA to prevent a bureaucratically imposed mandate.
If you want a "free market" please check out Mogadishu, here in the US we have heavily regulated markets.

 

[Eraserhead]

In that case, as a redhead, I want them to consider hair color as a qualification for their board, too. Because none of the senior members of Apple are gingers.

If over a sufficiently large group (e.g all listed companies) redheads are underrepresented then that seems like a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Rogifan]

Of course. The fact that Apple updates its corporate bylaws is evidence. You know the difference between evidence and proof? On the other hand, I cannot see any evidence that this is done to pacify any activist investor group.

Ok flip my words. There is no proof that Apple updated its bylaws because their recruiting process isn't pulling in enough women or minority candidates. I have no proof that they updated their bylaws to pacify an activist group but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[flottenheimer]

Given women make up half the population shouldn't the long term aim be to make the board half women? Then Apple is woefully short.

Guess it wasn't crystal clear that it was sort of an ironic statement.

I hate that the world has become so focused on growth — it makes it way too easy to communicate even small steps as major progress.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Tim Cook needs to focus on SHAREHOLDER VALUE and get the dismal stock performance corrected.

tim cook the ballmer of apple? youre high. apple is the biggest, most profitable, most successful tech firm in the history of the planet. and cook has been running things for jobs for a long time.

a smart company doesnt focus on the stock market or shareholder value -- that's imaginary. a smart company focuses on delighting the customer and turning profit. profit is the air corporations breath. the rest will follow.

but dont take my word for it:

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

“Imagine an NFL coach,” writes Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, in his important new book, Fixing the Game, “holding a press conference on Wednesday to announce that he predicts a win by 9 points on Sunday, and that bettors should recognize that the current spread of 6 points is too low. Or picture the team’s quarterback standing up in the postgame press conference and apologizing for having only won by 3 points when the final betting spread was 9 points in his team’s favor. While it’s laughable to imagine coaches or quarterbacks doing so, CEOs are expected to do both of these things.”

 

[Eraserhead]

The entire "diversity in the workplace" push is SO misguided. I'd love to see it completely abolished.

The fact is, there's really no good reason to argue it's an issue or concern, unless you're part of a special interest group that wants to cry "discrimination!" when it feels not enough of the demographic it champions gets hired for certain jobs.

I have certainly provided genuine business value because I have been travelling. A company like apple sells to all sorts of different groups so having a diverse board will help target such markets.

Plenty of companies have got this wrong. E.g. Selling cars in India without electric back windows even though there people have drivers.

 

[coolspot18]

I don't even get it. Why not just pick whos best for the job? I can see the point if two people are equally qualified, but they keep picking older white males.

Why not try to pick who is best, before commenting on gender or other factors.

Hard to pick another when Choice A, B, C, D are all from the same social circles.

However, high-tech has three colours, White, Brown, and Yellow ... very few Black people.

 

[calaverasgrande]

An industry created by white males, is run by white males?

The serious question here is why we aren't pushing more women into technology/computer science fields so that they can beat out the male colleagues. Marissa Mayer heads Yahoo, so its not impossible.

This is a good point.
I have worked in IT for a while and it is not common to see many women in IT. Part of it may be that the entry level jobs such as Helpdesk and relo work are pretty locker room atmospheres with lots of off color jokes and faux macho behavior.
Ever walk in on the helpdesk to find them all playing a networked FPS?

OTOH I have been to Apple HQ and there are plenty of women and minorities that work there. (they also have a coffee bar near the entrance with barristas, what pomp). The people that interviewed me were a pretty diverse group. Only one white guy that I recall. I'd also point out that in the San Jose-Cupertino area white males are not exactly the dominant demographic. There are large Asian, East Indian and Latin communities. It is kind of less of a concern to me the lack of female representation in the upper ranks. I am accustomed to that in the IT field.
However the paucity of Latin, East Indian or Asian management is kind of strange for a company in Silicon Valley.
Of course it may simply boil down to the common practice of maybe not giving preference to whites, but rather giving interviews to people from the same Colleges. EG
"Hey this guy got his MBA at Syracuse, I got my MS at Syracuse. We should talk to this guy."
I know that is how the current company I work for functions.
Though it does beg the question of what are the Talent Acquisition's dept guidelines?