4 ms·

> They also came up with other great ideas, including adding a tool that automates the first coding task and removes a candidate’s identifying information. Thi

• microcolonel 9y ago
  That's great and all, but why go to the trouble of finding a politics-oriented candidate pool, instead of a performance-oriented one if removing identifying information and automating the first prescreening task (among other things) are the meat of the operation? It seems like they sorta quickly move past the questionable candidate selection process to talk about the stuff they can be more proud of.
• tomp 9y ago
  Hm... I wonder what the influence of that process was. I.e. how does the outgoing percentages (50:50) compare with the incoming percentages? The article doesn't say, but unless it's also 50:50, their process is still biased / sexist, possibly even more than at companies that don't achieve a 50:50 outcome.
• jon_e_pizza 9y ago
  Correct, because they're trying to mislead you: > They also came up with other great ideas, including adding a tool that automates the first coding task and removes a candidate’s identifying information. Based on the feedback, we’ve implemented a number of changes to our internal process for recruiting. At no point do they say they implemented removing candidate information. They say it was suggested, and then _separately_ they state they implemented a number of changes. You can't randomly pick 50:50 out of 18:82 and they very much didn't.