Can data help to fight Big Tech's sexism?

Sixty percent of women working in the tech field say they have been sexually harassed, according to a survey of workers in Silicon Valley. Will increased transparency help to fight the industry's double standards?

|
Jeff Chiu/ AP/ File
Ellen Pao, center right, walks with her attorney Therese Lawless before a courthouse news conference in San Francisco in this March 2015 file photo. Ms. Pao's lawsuit for gender discrimination at a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, which was decided in favor of her employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, brought attention to sexism in tech-related industries.

Sixty percent of women in Silicon Valley say they have been sexually harassed, and 90 percent have witnessed sexism at off-site events. Eighty-seven percent say they have listened to demeaning comments from male colleagues, and one in three say they have at times feared for their personal safety.

Those are some of the stark figures from "Elephant in the Valley," a survey of more than 200 women in the Bay Area-centered tech industry. Most of the women surveyed are high-powered professionals, and mothers; one in four are executives, and one in ten founded her own company. 

Their credentials weren't enough to shield them from harassment in a field that has actually lost women over time: today, about a quarter of computer and math professionals are female, compared to one third in 1990. At elite companies, that number is often even smaller: just 13 percent of Twitter's tech positions are held by women, and even at Apple, a relative leader, only about a quarter of officers, managers, and professionals are female

So why do some say it will get better?

"The biggest positive difference over the past 20 years is how women and minorities are sharing others' bad behavior, data, and their own experiences publicly," Ellen Pao wrote in Lenny this fall. 

Ms. Pao's story is just one example – although, in some ways, still a cautionary tale for women who choose to speak up about the double standards they witness on the job. In March, a judge ruled in favor of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which Pao, a junior investing partner, had sued for gender discrimination. 

But the case inspired a "Pao effect": many women felt more emboldened to speak up about their own experiences of discrimination. The seven women behind "Elephant in the Valley" wanted to document them, so individuals would realize their own experiences were part of a bigger pattern.

Employees continue to anonymously upload their stories to the "Elephant" site. One remembers colleague lunches at Hooters; another says a CEO asked to "watch me walk." Big nights out drinking or trips to the golf course without female colleagues are common, as are sexual comments. Of women who report such experiences, 60 percent say they're dissatisfied with the results. 

"I suspect ... that if 25-year-old me read what I've written here, she wouldn't have believed it," Pao wrote about what she'd witnessed in the Valley's venture capital and tech industries. 

Those stories are powerful. But some of tech's favorite buzzwords can also help take down the notion that discrimination is rare, or usually punished: "transparency," for one. As more companies and workers post their stories and stats online, fewer can claim it's not a problem.

It's only in the last few years, for instance, that major companies are publicly posting their diversity figures. Often, that goes hand in hand with promises to increase diversity-conscious hiring, and attempts to fix the so-called pipeline problem: the theory that not enough women or minorities are studying the fields that prepare them for tech jobs.

But keeping female employees may be a bigger problem than finding them, thanks to male-dominated work cultures.

There again, transparency may be able to help. Efforts to publish salary information, for instance, can indicate when women are underpaid compared to similarly-performing colleagues. 

Other initiatives can help prospective employees "find their match" before accepting a job. Thousands of women have rated their workplaces on a 14-metric survey at In Her Sight, a free website created by former Motley Fool VP Ursula Mead. "We let the data speak for itself," its homepage says. "We believe that the best way to improve the workplace is by measuring it."

"Companies are just as interested in knowing this information," Ms. Mead told The Wall Street Journal, saying that several have asked her how to make their workplaces more female-friendly.

For women, the flood of info is leverage. For companies, it's accountability.

"Tech and VC leaders argue that they aren't doing it on purpose – it's 'unconscious' bias," Pao wrote in her piece for Lenny, where she encouraged young women to be "resilient" and speak up, despite the risks. "Well, now that you are talking about it, it's not unconscious."

At Facebook, which has recently expanded parental leave and instituted training to "manage your biases," "Lean In" author and COO Sheryl Sandberg has a favorite poster: "Nothing at Facebook is Someone Else’s Problem."

"The inequities that persist are everyone’s problem – gender inequality harms men and women, racism hurts whites and minorities, and equal opportunity benefits us all," she wrote for Forbes last month. "We need to help everyone understand that equality is necessary for our industry and economy."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Can data help to fight Big Tech's sexism?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0114/Can-data-help-to-fight-Big-Tech-s-sexism
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe