Link: What is turning women off coding?

Following from are women in tech really in tech we have:

Some things to think about before you exhort everyone to code by Miriam Posner

Which points out the important cultural aspect of why it is that women are often not coders.

If you are not a woman in tech, and wonder why there are so few... this article is for you.

So is this recent article on the recent "brogramming" phenomenon: Brogramming: just one of the girls by addabirnir from Skillcrush

She points out that "brogramming" has its intentions in the right place: it is just trying to inject some appeal into coding... but is doing so in a blatantly misogynistic fashion. (eg "without brogramming, bros might just feel like...one of the girls") and thereby alienating the very few women who are trying to break into this industry.

The important take-home message from her is "you don’t need to alienate anyone to make yourself comfortable"

Also of very distinct interest is the NYT article about Wikipedia's serious gender imbalance, which also points the finger strongly at geek culture - which is extremely male, and can be very uncomfortable for a woman.

Speaking personally on this subject, it took me a good ten years before I figured out the rules for getting along in geek society. My feminine upbringing was with an entirely different, incompatible culture. I can well understand that the serious culture shock would be offputting to the point where many women might not even want to bother continuing.

Again, I'd recommend reading all these article to get a glimpse into why this is the case.

Seven signs your company is really a cult

I just read this article on signs you might be in a cult and Eliezer Yudkowsky's article on cultish countercultishness (where he discusses the cultishness of all groups of humans, and a few theories on how to fight against it happening) and realised that most of the places I *didn't* like to work in - displayed strong cultish tendencies.

Here's a list of the common tendencies I noticed in companies I didn't like working for:

1 - Hierarchical authoritative structure

While hierarchy is inherent in almost all businesses, it was particularly strong in the ones I didn't like working for. What got me was the fact that these companies *stressed the importance* of the hierarchy - ie, the higher up you were, the more important you are and the more you should be faithfully obeyed, rather than, say, the more responsibility you were taking onto your shoulders.

I follow the spider-man principle that "with great power, comes great responsibility"... rather than "with great power comes greater ability to boss everybody else around".

Of course, exaggerated hierarchy goes hand-in-hand with "exaggerated adoration of the respected leaders" (one of the cultish-signs in the articles).

I find this especially the case in companies with strongly charismatic CEOs (or even just one or two managers). Especially so if they can name-drop other big names of the business world they've worked with/for (whether human or corporate)

When you start feeling that you cannot criticise anything that the CEO/manager says simply *because* he's your manager/CEO - then something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Nothing is absolute - even the perfection of "our great leader". Everybody has faults, and everybody has the potential to learn, yea even from the mouths of babes. So when people are literally told off for having the gall to question "orders from above", you've got something fishy going on.

Sometimes, this idea can affect the whole company:

2 - Absolutism about the company

Either you adore the place with tears-of-joy staining your face, or else you're suspect, "not a team player".

How do you expect the company to improve if you start from a position where everybody must repeat the mantra "the company is perfect and can do no wrong"?

Unfortunately, I've seen this particular problem run hand-in-hand with the next one:

3 - Total immersion

Absolutism can be taken to a personal extreme when you get the sense that you are being told that you are a better person, the more you do for the company. If you spend all your waking hours at work - it shows how virtuous you are, how much of a "team player"... conversely, if you show yourself to be less than ecstatic at a chance to work unpaid overtime, then you must be "not a team player", and thus are suspected of being against the company (somehow)... rather than just, say "a normal person who likes their homelife".

4 - In-groups vs out-groups

AKA "group members encouraged to distrust outside criticism as having hidden motives"

While all companies will of course have in-groups (ie members of the company) vs out-groups... some companies go on to demonise those in the out-groups. I've noticed two obvious groupings that fit in this category:

4a - The inter-company version

"We're much better than *that* company - our competitor over there... everyone there is evil... I mean, they create poor quality products, are trying to take our profits away from us, and are bad for business. They are out to get us! We must beat them and laugh in their faces!"

IMO it is not necessary to demonise your competitors to deal with them. They are just trying to get along in the world, just like "our" company - so they are quite deserving of being treated with the same respect that we'd like to be treated. For example, one should not take every opportunity to take advantage of them. It is certainly not necessary to revel in (or even to actively bring about) their destruction.

4b - The intra-company version

See also: "absolutism about the company" and "total immersion". Especially the use of derogatory phrases for out-groups such as "not a team player".

I've worked in companies where people that resign (even on good terms) are considered to be traitors. Yes, literally traitors, as though you are betraying the trust invested in you by the company. Sometimes they are treated as having taken advantage of the company for money (as though the company did not receive equal value for said money). If you're still working in that company, you're no longer allowed to associate with the "traitors" without also being tainted by the brush of distrust.

Clearly this is pathological behaviour.

In my opinion, healthy companies respect the fact that you are a person first, and a company-member second. People leave companies for reasons other than "betrayal" - and that should be respected, in the same way that an amicable split-up can occur.

Some (good) companies even go on to actually care about what happens to you *after* you leave the company - for example, the well-known google alumni program.

Still, the cultish companies tend to view this as a thought-stopper. If you leave the company, you are now part of the out-group and, by definition, evil. You are simply not allowed to think about it in any other way, or else you are also suspected of being part of the out-group.

Other ways of thought-stopping are inherent in:

5 - Thought-terminating cliches

Some companies are full of these. There are many things that you are *not* allowed to think. Taboos that you shouldn't break or be stigmatised, and they are often hidden behind a cliche that is intended to stop thought in the matter.

The best (general) case I can give is that of "the way things are done here". If this is uttered by anybody at your company, it is intended as a way to stop you from continuing the discussion. It's a big, flashing sign that says "Just don't go there". Trying to show the limitations of such taboo areas just puts you under suspicion.

IMO this is not a healthy attitude towards your company. If you have things that "are just the way we do things here"... then the question naturally arises as to *why*, and whether or not there might actually be a better way. Sure, we shouldn't needlessly poke holes in everything for the sake of it, but somebody asking why things are the way they are isn't trying to tear everything down.

It's also perfectly reasonable to answer the question with "well, it's not optimal, but the time it'd take to change it would outweigh the benefits gained".

That would be an honest answer, and would actually answer the question, instead of "Just don't ask alright?"

6 - Isolation from people not in the in-group

Not as common, but some companies try to keep everything in-house. I've found that the more cultish companies are more likely to look at you strangely if you decide to take lunch outside (you know, with regular people, instead of just with your team-mates every single day of every week...).

I find that this one tends to lead on from strong inter-company in-groupishness. ie, if you view all outsiders as suspect... then anybody that associates with outsiders must also be suspect.

It's also related to the "total immersion" idea. If you truly are a "team player", then surely you want to spend all your waking hours at your beloved company, rather than going out and having a break.

7 - All forms of individuality must be de-emphasized

This is more about the fact that individualism is actively quelled. If you're in a company where the only individual expression you are allowed is in what photo to sit on your desk, and what the trite saying is on your coffee-mug... then you're in trouble.

Cubicles, rules about personal items and the wearing of business-attire certainly all contribute to quelling individuality, but even if these are not present, individuality may be de-emphasised in purely psychological ways.

There are even interesting-but-weird cultural forms of this effect where you are expected to share the passions of your colleagues regardless of whether you, say, don't actually enjoy watching sporting events in favour of reading physics textbooks... or prefer to spend your lunchtime reading rather than discussing said sporting-games (or hairstyles and office gossip, in the case of one set of women I worked with).

It's ok to invite team-members to join into these activities. It's *not* ok to treat people as pariahs if they choose not to participate.

I've even had one company tell me off at my annual review because I wanted to abstain from the company "tipping competition"... regardless of the fact that I have no clue about the sport in question (I was advised to choose randomly... and that <the secretary> had found this strategy very effective to win.)

The most insidious individuality-repression I've found is with excessive worship of groupthink. Where you are expected to agree with all the decisions of your colleagues - and dissuaded from (or actively told off for) finding flaws in "the plan". This especially occurs in conjunction with leader-adoration.

I've spoken about the pitfalls of this in The two faces of optimism.

But it's all just a game isn't it?

Now, I recognise that even in the companies that inculcate these tendencies, the actual people involved (at least at the lower levels) realise that it's all kind of a game... That you don't have to actually *believe* any of this bullshit - just to play along and pretend, in order to "win".

but my response is: why do we have to pretend?

Surely it'd be healthier (for all of us) if we just admit that it's all bullshit and get on with actually enjoying our life?

Especially when a lot of the things we have to pretend actively work against you.

I do not want to pretend that I love unpaid overtime - because I actually hate it - as do most people in the vast majority of jobs that exist in this world.

I really do have better things to do than marching up and down the square... and I think that everyone can actually come up with something or other they'd rather be doing with their life. So why go through the charade? Why force me to lie to you about it? What does that gain?

There are actually companies that don't.

They are unfortunately few and far between... but they do exist.

I've noticed that smaller companies are actually far less prone to cultishness. Perhaps because there are so few people that everyone's more accountable, perhaps because they're too new to have an ingrained cultish culture... I don't know.

There are also companies who have purposely adopted a culture that leads to a good work-life balance.

I do like Eliezer's Cultish countercultishness post because it gives a good overview of the problem (with reference to his particular group), with the final moral being that almost all groups have a tendency to cultishness... that you have to actively work against these natural tendencies to make sure you don't fall into the trap.

So, in short, if you're in a company that is not cultish - my advice it to work hard to make sure it stays that way.

If you find that you are in a company that is irreparably becoming a cult... look elsewhere.

The culture I prefer

This article named telecommuting culture is an interesting look at how job ads can make it pretty clear about the associated company culture. It pretty much sums up my own experiences of how to tell a company culture that I like from one where I'll just never fit in...

"The world’s a big place. There’s a lot of developers in it. There’s even a few kick ass ones. Most of those don’t live near you ... By being up front about telecommuting not being and option, you’re telling me that company comes first ... Hiring someone good is important, but hiring the best you can afford isn’t."

There's a follow-on post on taking stances that points out how much of a controversy was stirred up by his original, highly opinionated post. He's nicely pointed out that his stance was a strong one - in order to generate discussion, but that he's not unreasonable, basically he just wants people to understand that job-hunting is a two-way street. The following quotes best summarise his (modified) stance.

"Companies that start the conversation with prospective employees by outlining the things they aren’t going to stand for are starting off on the wrong foot..."

"Companies, particularly in the tech space, are asking their potential employees to take a chance on them. Companies are taking a risk too, but when companies expect the employees to be the only ones giving (broadly disregarding monetary compensation from the companies for the moment), they set the wrong tone."

I completely agree with this feeling. Sometimes employers forget that they're not just interviewing you, but that you are also interviewing them - and that this really is a business proposal that has to be fair to both sides. If a company comes across as unwilling to be flexible for any reason, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the employment relationship.

I've too often seen employers that seem to think they own your soul once you sign on the dotted line... that they can make any demand of you and that you'll jump-to. This is the business equivalent of "the customer can have any colour he likes so long as it's black". Which may well work just fine for people that like black... but if you find it overheats in the sun and you need white... you'll find it best to take your business elsewhere. In fact I wrote about the lack of viability of this attitude (at length) in Up or out: the attitude for contractors.

This seems especially to be the case in a down economy as has recently been the case - where I've even seen some employers demand unpaid overtime and drop loud hints about how people should be grateful for having any job at all in this economy.

Apart from being incredibly rude, such employers are short-sighted. Firstly - the economy is going to pick up again... at which point, the indentured slaves are quite capable of picking up sticks and going elsewhere. Secondly - even in the down economy, there were enough jobs (at least in my field) to go and find somewhere that treated their employees like human beings rather than indentured servants.

It pays, in the long run, to be considerate to your staff; to even be flexible, or generous. After all, they're the ones who are literally making your company's money, day-in and day-out.

Up or Out - the attitude for contractors

I've just read the article Up or Out on The Daily WTF. This is related to/based on Bruce Webster's article Wetware crisis: Dead Sea effect. They provide a fascinating look into the culture of the skilled IT workforce as it pertains to over-zealous attempts at retaining skilled workers.

So I got to thinking about how that applied to myself, and my past experience in IT. I've worked both as an employee and, recently, as a contractor - and I've certainly noticed the difference in attitude between the two.

I believe that contractors automatically have this "up or out" mentality. They know that their required skills are wide and varied, and that to keep ahead of the game, they need to keep their skill-level up. Staying in one job for a long term leads (eventually) to skill-stagnation. Not because the company no longer has anything to teach a contractor, but because of a case of diminishing returns.

As the article states, any skilled worker can learn a lot more by exposing themselves to new opportunities, than by sticking with a single firm. However, contractors seem to be far more aware of this fact than long-term employees (even the skilled ones). Contractors seem to have learned the lesson that current and diverse skills are marketable, and that in-house knowledge of a specific system, while beneficial to keeping a specific job, doesn't lead to expansion of a skill-set. This leads contractors to constantly push themselves to try new and different things to stay ahead of the game - to keep themselves a marketable commodity.

Employers don't seem to have kept up with this understanding. The majority of employers look poorly on hiring contractors (except for specific skills lacking in-house), compared with potential long-term employees. Contractors fall foul of the attitude mentioned in the article - the feeling that contractors are just "dating around" and aren't serious about their committment. This despite the fact that employers are no longer loyal towards employees (a job is no longer a career-for-life).

So are contracters flighty or are they simply being honest? We know that our skills improve by varied experience. Stagnating in a single shop isn't good for us *or* for the company - yet we constantly get the look-down-the-nose treatment as though we are far more unreliable than their indentured employees.

Workers and companies both benefit from fresh-blood. There is definitely a balance involved here - continual turnover can make it impossible to keep hold of institutional knowledge (which is why documenting procedures is so important!), but a company without fresh-blood will stagnate and lose market-share due to a lack of new and innovative insights coming into the company. Any firm can benefit from a good mix of the two. The fact that contractors have accepted and embraced this fact should be a sign of maturity, rather than flightiness.

I especially dislike that skeptical tone that comes with with the phrase "oh, so you're *not* interested in long-term employement". I feel I'm simply being realistic. But employers (and recruitment agencies) that employ the tone seem to imply I'm being disloyal... or committment-phobic. Neither of which is the case.

A few rare cases even seem to imply that I'm simply being greedy - shopping around for a better cash-deal, which is far from the case. While I'll take a higher salary over a lower one, I'm far more motivated by an interesting project and an opportunity to learn. That's why I'm in Rails rather than many other technologies that pay well. I would never take a higher salary just to do something that was mind-numbingly boring and, in my mind, dead-end. I'm just stoked that I get to work in a field that is cutting edge *and* well paid at the same time ;)

I have no problem with sticking around with a group that values me and that contributes to my own experience. My current contract (with SIRCA) has lasted more than a year. I fully believe that I have added value to this project. I also have learned a great deal. I have also had smaller contracts where I have provided some chunk of functionality or code-review - each of which added visible benefit to the site I worked upon, and also provided an opportunity for me to learn some new aspect of the technology I work with. This is an equal-footing relationship - where both parties receive value.

My previous employment has included roles in which I felt my input was not valued, and in which I had no mentor from which to learn. Effectively I was gaining no value from them, and they were not gaining full value from me either. I stuck around for a long time trying to help out with the project - and eventually left due to burn-out. In hindsight I should have left far earlier and moved on somewhere that I had an opportunity to grow, and that valued the insights I was able to bring. It would have been a better opportunity for me - and the company I was with could have employed somebody that they would have felt comfortable with - increasing their return-on-investment as well.

In a free market - there's no point in sticking with a relationship that is not valuable, or which provides value only to one party or the other. I won't leave for reasons of greed or lack of committment - I'll only leave if you and I are no longer gaining enough value for the professional relationship to be worthwhile.

If an employer doesn't feel that this is reasonable - then we need a good talk on the concept of "fairness".

Healthy economic relationships come about when both parties benefit. Anything else doesn't make economic sense. When the benefit to one or the other fades over time, then it should be understood that this will lead to the eventual ending of the relationship. It's simply a matter of good business practice - and shouldn't be looked on as "lack of committment" any more than moving to a cheaper/more efficient supplier.

</whinge> :)

Update: Bruce Webster has written a follow-on article: some thoughts on up or out which gives a few ideas on how to avoid developer-churn or the Dead-sea effect (and even counteract the thermocline of truth) by providing a non-managerial track for techies to follow. I completely agree. If there was a way "up" that didn't involve "out" I'd go for it!

Attracting women

After the LCA dinner, a friend-of-a-friend asked me that perennial question: how do you attract women to your FOSS group? Here are my ideas.

Getting women into your group

The best way to attract women to your group - is to have women in it already.

Particularly women that are great role-models: active women that contribute and organise, like Pia Waugh (LCA2007 "Seven team"). Unfortunately, for many groups this just sets up a chicken-and-egg situation. If you don't have women already, how do you get your first ones to come along? Luckily you can leverage women in other groups. Some ideas:

Start by asking your own members. Do they have wives/girlfriends or colleagues in IT? What about other local IT communities eg local businesses? This is just like any other FOSS evangelising: these women are already in IT, but maybe have never heard of FOSS (or never realised that it could actually benefit them to come to a group like yours).

Then ask groups like yours in that are in other regions. Do they know any women that live in your area that might be interested? Would they be interested in travelling to your area and bringing their friends along, to get the ball rolling?

Look into the local, regional and national "Women in IT" groups and advertise yourself there. Promote what it is that you do, and why it would be interesting - just as you would to any other newbie.

LCA's great success this year was the large percentage of women that attended (10%). This was fuelled by the work put in by Mary Gardiner and other members of the LinuxChix group. These groups exist to help women do interesting stuff in IT - your group counts!

Even if these groups don't serve to find you any members, consider asking the women to come and speak at your group. Especially on gender issues. The linuxchix miniconf was a great success with women speaking on issues such as negotiation and the gender pay-gap issue. Women are interested in these issues... and so are men.

Retaining your women

One of the broader issues for women in the corporate world, is that women and men have their own cultures. Be mindful that women's culture is likely to be distinctly different (though no less important) than the culture you already have in your group.

Obviously I am speaking broadly and individuals differ widely, but there are some common issues with women, and understanding these issues will help you integrate.

Firstly, don't assume that your culture is better. If you have a culture in which people brag about their exploits and the loudest shouter wins the floor... don't be surprised if women stay away in droves. Women come from a culture in which it is considered polite (and expected) to await an opening before speaking. They will not jump in and say their piece just because everybody else does. If an opening is not made for them, then they may never speak at all - to the detriment of everybody.

Female culture thrives off positive feedback and encouragement. If you notice that a woman in your group has done something you think is cool - encourage her to tell people about it. Do not be surprised to find that she thinks nobody wants to know. This is a place where it's ok to tell her that she is wrong. :)

Most women are self-deprecating (by inculturation) and will often down-play their experience. Poor self-esteem is common, even in those that have many successes behind them. You may need to treat your women like "the quiet kid" who needs some encouragement to speak up.

With the particularly shy and retiring - take them under your wing a bit. If she is too afraid to do it herself, promote her successes for her and show her how much her contribution is valued. Prompt her to talk about what she did and what she learned. When she sees that you're not all big, scary people that are going to laugh at her... she'll be more likely to stay.

Don't be big, scary people that laugh. ;)

Newbie women are afraid of the same things that any newbie is afraid of. They're worried that they will look stupid amongst all these shining gods of IT. They think their dumb questions and newbie mistakes will be laughed-at. It's up to you to make sure they know that it's ok to be a beginner. This also goes for experienced women with low self-esteem - who often rate themselves as a beginner even when they are an expert.

Share your own stupid questions and mistakes. Show them that you gods are really human too and were once a newbie with dumb questions (and, in many cases, still are). Let them know that everybody asks stupid questions and nobody thinks the less of them. Make them understand that what they are going through is not only normal, but expected. This can be as simple as saying "I'm glad you asked that", when they do pluck up the courage to ask.

Finally, support (or start) a women's chapter for your group. The intent is not to have a separatist group, favourable only to a minority. It should instead be a safe haven for newbie women to socialise and network with their peers as they adjust to a new and alien culture.

Getting women into your group (and keeping them there), is a Hard Problem. But there are lots of things you can try. The effort will mostly be in the initial stages - once the ball is rolling it'll take on its own momentum, and the results (I think) are worth it.

Want to know more?

Read Val Henson's article on encouraging women in linux. It's very thorough.