What Damore’s Manifesto says about Google

Stephen Bounds
Aug 8, 2017 · 7 min read

Many of you now know of the ‘Manifesto’ circulated inside Google last week by now ex-staffer James Damore, calling for an end to Google’s ideological echo chamber which he asserts is preventing an honest discussion about Google’s diversity programs.

After the predictable social media outrage erupted last week, Damore was fired by Google on Monday.

Obviously there may be more facts than are available to the public at the moment. Generally, though, I don’t believe that non-malicious acts should be punished without an opportunity for reconciliation and discussion, and will talk more about why below.

I have attempted to paraphrase the main points made by Damore in his manifesto as clearly as possible below.


Ideology and self-sealing topics

Damore: As an organisation, Google holds an ideology that is not open for debate with two key points:
- All disparities in representation (ie less than 50/50) are due to oppression
- It is correct to “discriminate” to correct for this oppression

The published rationale on Google’s diversity site is sound:

A diverse mix of voices leads to better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone.

There is strong anecdotal support for diversity in the various PR disasters experienced by organisations who have overly homogenous staff populations. Additionally, many of the strategies Google is using to encourage more equitable promotion are strongly backed by data.

It’s also important to note that the throwaway mention of “50% representation” by Damore is a straw man. Google’s own statistics report that its leaders are 70% white and 75% male — hardly a situation where the “diverse” component of the company is getting an unfair advantage over the traditional Anglo-Saxon male.

However, Google CEO Pichai writes: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct [which forbids] bias and unlawful discrimination.”

These remarks do suggest an ideology exists at Google. Pichai’s statement appears to deny any possible role of biology in competence, which is an untenable statement to hold in an absolute form. For example, 69% of spatial ability is heritable.

Damore: Google has a culture of shaming, misrepresenting, and failing to accept people who do not align with this ideology, with people espousing views contrary to this ideology likely to be fired

In light of current events, it is hard to argue that this point is not true. As mentioned, my view is that this was not the correct decision.

Regardless of any stated intentions after the fact, actions speak louder than words and the implications are clear: people holding non-conforming views will be punished.

This leads to ritualised groupthink, preventing underlying assumptions from being voiced or challenged — a process termed “self-sealing” by noted business theorist Chris Argyris. The models he developed for organisational decision-making and their implications for this situation will be discussed later.


Bias and organisational engineering

Damore: Google says that unconscious and explicit bias is discriminating against women, but men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently

Here Damore misses the fact that discrimination can be objectively observed and measured, both directly and indirectly. The essence of establishing discrimination is:

  • take a repeatedly occurring situation where a choice is required, such as selecting a person for promotion
  • compare the relevant characteristics of the available options
  • evaluate whether a reasonable person could have made the same choice if only supplied with relevant characteristics and instructions on the basis to make that choice
  • record the number of times where the reasonableness test fails

Discrimination occurs when a person with irrelevant characteristics are chosen more or less often than the other. For example, Asian Australians are 10 times less likely to be appointed judges. That strongly suggests discrimination.

Damore provides no examples or statistics relating to male discrimination except for his perceived exclusion from programs specifically designed to boost diversity. This is unfortunate, and has more than a whiff of sour grapes about it.

In any case, not all decisions should be made purely on individual merit. This is different from discrimination or bias, because a conscious decision has been made to seek benefits in group dynamics from increased diversity.

It is a process similar to a sports team seeking people who complement the capability of the team rather than just looking for individual talent.

Lastly, it is necessary to distinguish between role discrimination and a choice to address social disadvantage.

Social disadvantage exists when people face adversity or lack access to prerequisites for fairly contesting a position. For example, some groups of people may tend to lack the financial capacity to obtain a necessary degree.

Shareholders and directors of companies are entirely within their rights to act to address social disadvantage on the basis of generated goodwill or other intangible benefits received by the company.


Biological differentiation

Damore: On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways with biological causes and heritable traits. A different distribution in preferences and ability of men and women is due in part to biological causes
- Many differences are small and there is significant overlap between men and women
- You can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions

These statements are constructed carefully and withstand criticism well, despite the fact that the science remains highly contested. However, most studies agree that there is a significant overlap in trait frequency. That is, there is not significant dimorphism between genders except in terms of sex organs. This means that the assertions do not support Damore’s position as well as he might think.

Google only hires a tiny portion of the very best and brightest . Even if the “average” traits of a male were beneficial to Google (and that is contestable), given the significant overlap in natural trait range, Google is entirely capable of recruiting women from the part of the population curve that holds these desired traits.

Therefore, any purported “biological differences” would not interfere with Google’s preference to recruit a diverse employee population.

Damore discusses perceived differences in the experiences of men and women:
- Asserts examples of how women differ on average from men, eg “empathising vs systematising”
- Cites research suggesting that innate dispositional differences between men and women increase in more prosperous countries
- Asserts that men are judged more for success primarily on status and pay
- Suggests ways to make tech work environments more suited to the average traits of women
- Suggests that while programming jobs remain lucrative, they will be disproportionately attractive to men unless and until the gender role of men is redefined

As noted above, most of these arguments become irrelevant once we move from any examination of the overall population to the population employed by Google.

I did want to briefly touch upon the cited research though. Aside from any questions around the study’s methodology, I would suggest that its chief flaw in construction is the use of self-assessment rather than any objective measurement of populations.

Research shows that people conform their presentation to match norms once they become aware of the existence of those norms, as with mentally ill people told about the typical symptoms of anorexia nervosa.

It is entirely plausible that the greater reported difference between genders is a function of these populations being more self-aware about these social norms than of any hardwired biological difference.


Argyris and governing values

Damore: Gender and race diversity programs should only be adopted where it is of net economic benefit to Google

Diversity should be de-moralized, that is, evaluated on costs and benefits rather than ideals

“Discriminating” with the sole purpose of increasing representation of women in tech is misguided

Now we come to the critical question of what kind of company Google is. Damore is advocating that Google should change its values. In turn, Google’s response to this challenge tells us what kind of company it is.

An Argyris Model I company would respond as Google has by using these rules of decision-making:

  • Win, do not lose
  • Treat one’s views as obviously correct
  • Suppress negative feelings
  • Control environment unilaterally

On the other hand, a Model II company would instead respond by:

  • Circulating valid information
  • Surfacing conflicting views
  • Participatory design and solutions
  • Increasing internal commitment

The adopted decision-making model matters because Model I companies can only achieve single-loop learning — that is, staff in these organisations are not in a position to question assumptions and stated goals.

By comparison, double-loop learning allows companies to openly examine and change their governing values, potentially altering assumptions and goals to better meet overall organisational objectives.

True Model II companies are extremely rare. We can see this in the many dozens of comments saying words to the effect of: “How could Damore be surprised about being fired? He committed career suicide as soon as he criticised Google leaders.” Most people have just accepted that we will always be working in Model I environments (a self-reinforcing method of ensuring that this remains true — but I digress).

Damore asserts several facts about Google’s diversity program:
-
Claims a lack of transparency about diversity programs
- Implies that Google’s programs are only being done to be “seen” to be doing something
- Advocates for greater psychological safety (ie the ability to speak up without the fear of being judged)

Damore: Mandatory unconscious bias training should be reconsidered, given a lack of evidence of efficacy

I won’t comment on these assertions in detail, since they require knowledge of Google’s operations that I am not privy to.

The trigger for this furore appears to be Damore’s frustration at Google’s Model I approach to decision making, which made the mere act of discussion of Google’s diversity values taboo.

Yes, Damore also asserts a number of generalisations about social constructionism, the gender wage gap, bias towards protecting females, biological disposability of males, average traits of various groups, and the inability for men to complain about gender issues. Many of these views are contestable or flat out wrong.

However, I don’t believe they would have surfaced in such a counterproductive way if Damore had been provided with the opportunity to honestly discuss Google’s reasoning behind its diversity programs with management.

Given the apparent lack of malicious intent in Damore’s writings, the choice to terminate rather than educate Damore will merely reinforce Google’s Model I processes.

This will substantially weaken Google’s abilities to engage in double-loop learning and continue testing its assumptions. One day, retaining a wrong assumption might cost Google far more than a few days of debate from a non-malicious, but poorly thought-out document.

Stephen Bounds

Written by

Always interested, always learning. Executive, Information Management at Cordelta.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade