Alan Moore and Michael Kitces pledge 50-50 gender ratio at XYPN then digitally fill two crucial roles with women -- one hire using Indeed and the other by Twitter

Are we consistently better off with gender and racial quotas, or would we be better of with a meritocracy and let the variance in gender, race, religion or sexual orientation fall where they may. If we need 50/50 gender quotas, we certainly need more male nurses.

I hope they lose every lawsuit that face for this sexism. As someone who has been discriminated against in hiring, blatantly, twice, I can assure you that discrimination is never a good thing, and always opens the door to more discrimination. Hire the best person for the job, without regard to gender, race, etc. Period. The phrase “slippery slope” wasn’t created on accident.... The worst part is that someone in the industry will applaud this. This is what we as a country have worked so hard to reduce/end and now we are bringing it back deliberately. The kicker is that we can look at the numbers- it’s not helping any community. Time after time, any community that is handed something becomes worse off for it. This is not a new tale.

Gender discrimination as a virtue signal. Really, Michael Kitces?? Unfollow.

It is interesting to see from the latter three comments that men are in fact impassioned gender discrimination activists -- when there's even a whiff of erring on the side of hiring more women.

Brooke, we are only defending non-discriminatory hiring practices. Hire the best person for the job- period.

Brian, Surely there are strong talking points on both sides when discussing a firm that professes intentionality in creating a gender balance in its workforce. Inherently, deliberate hiring of women is also a deliberate repudiation of men. But I'd contend that being 'non-deliberate' is a narrow approach that assures a very stodgy outcome for a broader workforce. The latter concern is heightened when you are Kitces and Moore. Their business model seeks disruption that includes serving inarguably under-served women consumers and younger consumers in general. If they are willing to bet private capital and their own legacies in diversifying their workforce then I'm willing to say publicly I see the glass as half full. Maybe they'll be eaten alive by firms that hire 'experienced' dudes that look like us (or them). I like that they are willing to test out a different HR mentality on behalf of all of us.

Brooke, that's a lot of words. Are you arguing for discriminatory hiring practices? Yes or no?

Brian, Are you saying any intentional effort to get past the 80-20 logjam of hiring old white males is discrimination? Yes or no?

I'm saying two things: 1) We don't know why the industry is dominated by old white guys. Why is nursing dominated by women? Why is plumbing dominated by men? 2) I'm for non-discrimination. Hire the best person for the job.

It's fine-slicing. I get it. I have a feeling that from the perspective of many women there's a common aromatic denominator between yesteryear's financial firms and what plumbers get asked to unclog.

You never answered my question.

You won't answer whether the definition of "discrimination" encompasses any hiring philosophy that attempts to break the 80-20 logjam of hiring old white males...What's your answer? [Don't write about nurses, please.]

The irony here is that it doesn't matter what someone calls discrimination. Science and history have already shown that labeling any group, whether it be "underrepresented women" or "Stodgy old white men" (a term from a comment someone used above), or any other artificial construct is ineffective at targeting a problem. We also know that targeting a problem after it has already been created is both inefficient 100% of the time, and ineffective 99% of the time. There is a reason effective organizations and individuals plan ahead... If you want to win a race, the effort must start well before the race. Demonstrating the action of judgment by genitalia or other visual effect demonstrates weakness and insecurity. Tackling a problem with a reactive response demonstrates a lack of problem-solving ability. Real problem solving starts well before the event (the hiring), and in this case, starts in childhood. Effective solutions could include, but are not limited to: >Fostering Scout Troops focused on business life skills like financial learning. (Formerly called Boy Scouts of America. And models already exist for this.) >Forming a financial industry COOP/Lobbying group under currently available federal laws (see the "GOT Milk" campaigns, golf industry initiatives, lumber and masonry industry initiatives, "Pork, the Other White Meat," et al.) to build real financial and career field selection assistance education into every curriculum in the country at every age. >Starting a volunteer industry-wide career counseling program that finds trains, and delivers advisors volunteering in the capacity of career counselors at schools throughout the country. >Blatant/ Traditional style lobbying to change education laws to require and provide the budget for financial education in schools, not to mention art, music, job experience programs in a multitude of fields including “blue-collar” fields that are also grossly underserved. For all I know, Kitces and others are already doing one or more of these things, but efforts rooted in poor management practices and lack of emotional intelligence are bound to fail from the start, whether they are “discrimination” by anyone's opinion or not. We would never tell a client we can solve all their financial woes through perfect investing via some magical ratio or allotment, we would start at the beginning with their education, ongoing learning, budgeting, financial plan, etc. This all, of course, doesn’t even touch on the fact that aesthetics, such as gender and skin tone, have nothing to do with actual diversity. Diversity is not a set of genitalia or genetic predetermination of melanocytes. One of the many problems with the current push for diversity is its core tenant that by segregating white from black and male from female we create diversity> Real diversity starts with getting to know people, not their skin tone or gender. There is so much more to life and diversity than things as petty as aesthetics. Real diversity is in skills, intrinsic and learned, work ethic, childhood, culture, mannerisms, traditions, and SO many more factors. Not aesthetics. If someone wants to prove to me, they aren’t racist, emotionally unintelligent, weak, or that this isn’t discrimination, or that you sincerely care about diversity, then show me you care about something more than how someone looks naked, the length of their hair, or what gender they go by or biologically command. Show me how you take action and work with others to bring about fundamental change from the root of the problem on up and put your money and time into the most effective and scientifically researched solutions to the issues at hand. Demonstrate critical thinking. Demonstrate a plan based on education and critical thinking instead of genetic quotas. And either way, hiring quotas do not fix the issue of the availability of incoming applicants meeting superficial visual standards. The HR department is not the root of the problem. Not even remotely close. And even if it was, it does not contain a solution to the problem, only reactionary emotional scrambling and the potential for endless lawsuits. That’s not good management. I don’t much care, actually, what someone calls or doesn’t call discrimination. I care about people who bust their butts to solve a problem for the long-term success of all; from the ground up, and aren’t afraid to buck a trendy emotional response (see: gender quotas) or do the hard work of creating real success for all. I care about people who work to earn a shot, and then should actually get that fair shot. Kitces clearly has a track record of successful organizations. It’s a shame he failed on such an epic level, and it’s a shame he stooped this low. His organizations should be leading the way, not following the emotional unintelligence of the Twittersphere. Real success starts from the ground up – no matter what you look like.

There seem to be some fundamental misunderstanding of what we are doing here at XYPN. We have a goal of having 50% of our executive team be female ( and 20% be non-white) because we know that having a diverse team makes us a better company. Hiring based on quotas isn't legal... So we won't use quotas to ensure we meet our goals, so we must ensure our hiring pipeline is full of people with diverse backgrounds. We will ALWAYS hire the best person for the job, and have never and will never hire 2nd or 3rd simply because they help us meet a diversity goal. That would be an insult to the person we hire. So we set a goal of building and maintaining diversity, so we fill the pipeline with highly qualified applicants, and hire the best. Because we did that, we have been able to add rockstar women to our executive and leadership teams that we otherwise wouldn't have added.

Yes, I strongly oppose hiring practice that discriminates on genitalia, even if it's meant to correct a perceived "problem" in the industry.

I see. You define discrimination" as "discriminating" [hence solely by your view] and you also invoke a Ken Fisher dog whistle, which I think brings us full circle to where many women understand men to stand on discrimination.

This popcorn moment was brought to by our sponsors :D But seriously "Ben" you made a few fatal flaws 1) you let your emotions get in the way; 2) in your first comment you attacked your audience wishing them ill-will; 3) you made it J in personal - all about you, not about all those individuals XYPN is allegedly going to discriminate against; 4) you expounded ad nauseum on "the issue" bringing to the fore all that is bad but provided no solution, no direction, zero applicable management suggestions or constructive criticism. You did succeed in alienating your audience and those whom you purport to defend. Correcting a situation starts with a step, hopefully forward, but we're all human and prone to not being it right - a lot. Just review history and it's repetitive nature.

Peter, I agree that making things personal does not help. That said, I have two questions: 1) Do you agree trying to solve apparent past discrimination with future discrimination is a bad idea? 2) As for a solution, don't you agree that hiring solely based on merit would eventually solve all discrimination problems, whether gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation or anything else? I believe this was Ben's repeated point. But I am afraid you don't like this point... My concern is your suggested cure is worse than the disease, which I am trying to help you understand. No offense intended...

Bill, You're mistaken, I made no suggested "cure". I said "Correcting a situation starts with a step, hopefully forward,..." Nowhere do you read that I agree or disagree. I was merely expressing my dismay in toward Ben's comments. Your first question is a presupposition. Something to be avoided at all costs. Your second question is also a presupposition. First you ask my opinion but in the next breath accuse me of not liking "Ben's repeated point", something I never stated or alluded to in my comments. Finally you state "which I am trying to help you understand." What and how are you trying to help me understand? Where in your comment do you explain anything? No matter, the horse is beaten after having been shot twice, buried, exhumed, flogged and shot again for good measure.

I just hire based on if I like the person or not. Heck with all that other crap.

Livermores Statement of Employment Diversity: Equal opportunity offered to all warm-blooded mammalian biological carbon units having advanced brain function including but not limited to: self-awareness; commensurate skills to execute assignments; and a record of intellectual advancement. All those meeting the aforementioned criteria may be considered candidates for employment at Livermore.

Love that, Jesse! Equal opportunity - one of the great ideals for any free country and prosperous society. Sadly, today's social justice warriors are destroying the great struggles of their forebearers.

To those who disagree with Alan Moore and Michael Kitces regarding how they choose to run and staff their company: do the hard work to build your own company, and hire as you see fit. You have the ability and freedom to do so. For myself, this article cements my perception of XYPN as a company that operates in a way that they believe is right. Good for you, Alan and Michael. I have no doubt your expanding executive team will continue to drive success for XYPN and its members. Mac Bartine, CEO SmartRIA

How incredibly demeaning this must be to the women already hired were considering employment with XYPN. I won’t admit to strongly considering being a customer, but now I certainly will be trying to avoid XYPN and advising others who hold anti-sexism values to do so as well. The implications presented by this presentation of hiring policy in such a brazen manner would be something I find highly insulting if my place of work decided that they needed to increase the quota of men in the workforce to 50%. Perhaps Alan and Michael should consider retirement, as that would help even the playing field in the manner they’re hoping to achieve.