4 ms·

Hi Aline! Great read, as always. I had a couple of thoughts while reading: 1) One of the things you mentioned was that men whose voices were modulated to soun

Hi Aline! Great read, as always. I had a couple of thoughts while reading: 1) One of the things you mentioned was that men whose voices were modulated to sound like women tended to score better than women whose voices were modulated to sound like men. Do you think that's because the men actually performed better than women, or do you think it's possible that interviewers have a lower set of expectations for female interviewees? Or some other reason? My hypothesis at this point is that, all other things being equal, it seems like if an interviewer expects you to do poorly because of an unconscious bias against women, and you actually do perfectly average, the interviewer might rate you higher simply because you surprised him. Does that make sense? 2) How did your partners (Mattermark, Yelp, etc) react to your findings? Will this change how they hire in the future or how they use interviewing.io? 3) Given enough time and resources, do you think it's really possible to eliminate gender bias in interviews (through techniques like this, or otherwise), or do you think the best we can do is minimize it? 4) Piggybacking off #3, do you do follow-ups with the companies after you've placed people? I'd be interested to see whether women who did well in the interview actually do well at the companies long-term -- perhaps those biases extend beyond the interviewing process, as well! Keep up the good work! :)

tekcor 10y ago
> "1) One of the things you mentioned was that men whose voices were modulated to sound like women tended to score better than women whose voices were modulated to sound like men. Do you think that's because the men actually performed better than women, or do you think it's possible that interviewers have a lower set of expectations for female interviewees? Or some other reason? My hypothesis at this point is that, all other things being equal, it seems like if an interviewer expects you to do poorly because of an unconscious bias against women, and you actually do perfectly average, the interviewer might rate you higher simply because you surprised him. Does that make sense?" I was actually expecting this even before reading the results. I believe this is because most companies try to have gender balance which tend to result in females being hired with lesser "score" than males, simply because of disparity between in pool male and female candidates available (even if you consider they perform equally well). Also I would say this is a bias towards females not against.

tekcor 10y ago

> "1) One of the things you mentioned was that men whose voices were modulated to sound like women tended to score better than women whose voices were modulated to sound like men. Do you think that's because the men actually performed better than women, or do you think it's possible that interviewers have a lower set of expectations for female interviewees? Or some other reason? My hypothesis at this point is that, all other things being equal, it seems like if an interviewer expects you to do poorly because of an unconscious bias against women, and you actually do perfectly average, the interviewer might rate you higher simply because you surprised him. Does that make sense?" I was actually expecting this even before reading the results. I believe this is because most companies try to have gender balance which tend to result in females being hired with lesser "score" than males, simply because of disparity between in pool male and female candidates available (even if you consider they perform equally well). Also I would say this is a bias towards females not against.