3 ms·
The problem here is not that an unhappy spouse will cause the employee to leave, but rather that the author makes the assumption that the employee will be male,
by untothebreach 10y ago
The problem here is not that an unhappy spouse will cause the employee to leave, but rather that the author makes the assumption that the employee will be male, and that the male will have a female SO.
- rectang 10y agoEXACTLY. So many people on this thread have not even noticed that women are not considered as candidates!
- douche 10y agoBecause it says explicitly: > RULE 1: You don’t recruit and retain male engineers you recruit and retain Wives and Girlfriends" Reading is fundamental
- st3v3r 10y agoThe implication being that you don't recruit or retain female engineers at all.
- douche 10y agoOne could imply that if one were searching out reasons to get offended over a tongue-in-cheek powerpoint, which in fact features another slide specifically about female engineers.
- lucozade 10y agoNo the implication is that that's not how you manage female engineers, it's just how you manage male engineers. He says later that female engineers will go get promoted into non-engineering roles soon enough anyway. The implication there is you don't need to worry about retaining them as engineers as they won't stay that way. BTW this isn't an endorsement of either his views or his approach. I mean the general thrust of the presentation could be renamed "ways to stiff your staff". There are bits of it that ring true e.g. the different motivations between newbies, lifers and the rest. The majority though is clearly intended to be provocative.
- scotty79 10y agoI think for that the rule 1 would have to state: "You don't hire female engineers. End of rule 1." There are some rules about male engineers but that doesn't preclude hiring women engineers. It just might have been that it's harder to form rules for them because of historically smaller sample to learn from.