4 ms·

Interviewed at Etsy about a year or two ago and the interviewer was asking me about politically charged topics. How I would handle workplace gender complaints.

Interviewed at Etsy about a year or two ago and the interviewer was asking me about politically charged topics. How I would handle workplace gender complaints. How they should handle racial diversity in the work place, etc. It was really clear I was giving wrong answers. I told them flat out that I think people should be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin and that the company should just try to be fair and hire the best people. I mean I get that companies want to do the right thing but you can only really do ONE thing well.

Gunax 7y ago
Wait... those are the wrong things to say? They are practically textbook PR cliches. They are not necessarily what people would actually do, but they sound like the correct answer in interview-speak.
- geofft 7y ago
  Er, if the question is "How would you handle someone you manage telling you of sexual/racial discrimination," the correct cliche answer is absolutely not to say "I judge people by the content of their character and pretend the color of the skin doesn't exist," or some equivalent form like "If the behavior would be acceptable if the people in the situation had different gender/race, then it's definitely acceptable." That would count as ignoring a report of discrimination that you're legally obligated to not ignore. (We'd need to know more details about the question and the answer to be sure.)
sailfast 7y ago
I assume this was for a supervisory position or an HR position? These aren’t really politically charged questions but rather questions about how to manage people and the issues that come with people. While the cause of the complaint may be politically charged, how one would handle the situation should be pretty by the book.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Even if the book is wrong?
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    "The book" in this case starts with legal obligations under the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment act, etc. A milquetoast 'well, I treat everyone equally' doesn't even come close.
    - AlexB138 7y ago
      How is treating people equally "not even close" to complying with those laws? I feel like I'm misreading to your comment, but it seems like treating people equally is exactly the point of those laws.
      - crooked-v 7y ago
        If a person is interviewing for a supervisory or HR position, there's a lot more involved than just their personal behavior, and even with personal behavior, just saying "I treat everyone equally" in a blandly shallow manner suggests a lack of experience with or thought about clashes of perspective in an organization. Or, to use an analogy, consider interviewing someone who, when asked about their preferences and strategies for ensuring code quality, answers "I just write correct code in the first place". Even if they're correct in that statement, that's not the sort of person you want in charge of that subject, because most people don't work like that, even if they wish they could.
  - sailfast 7y ago
    No, not if the book is wrong obviously . In this interview case, however, you’d want to be pretty specific about where you thought those flaws might be and suggest ways to make it even better. By “the book” I meant a well thought out process that follows the law, protects parties in a dispute, prevents retaliation, encourages reporting, and is well documented and understood. I’m probably missing a bunch of other best practices - not a certified HR Specialist. My only aim here was to distinguish between disputes that arise in politically charged areas vs. the handling of those disputes which, I would argue should not be charged at all but rather an efficient run-through of a dispute process that “works”.

Gunax 7y ago

Wait... those are the wrong things to say? They are practically textbook PR cliches. They are not necessarily what people would actually do, but they sound like the correct answer in interview-speak.

geofft 7y ago
Er, if the question is "How would you handle someone you manage telling you of sexual/racial discrimination," the correct cliche answer is absolutely not to say "I judge people by the content of their character and pretend the color of the skin doesn't exist," or some equivalent form like "If the behavior would be acceptable if the people in the situation had different gender/race, then it's definitely acceptable." That would count as ignoring a report of discrimination that you're legally obligated to not ignore. (We'd need to know more details about the question and the answer to be sure.)

sailfast 7y ago

I assume this was for a supervisory position or an HR position? These aren’t really politically charged questions but rather questions about how to manage people and the issues that come with people. While the cause of the complaint may be politically charged, how one would handle the situation should be pretty by the book.

Aeolun 7y ago
Even if the book is wrong?
- crooked-v 7y ago
  "The book" in this case starts with legal obligations under the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment act, etc. A milquetoast 'well, I treat everyone equally' doesn't even come close.
  - AlexB138 7y ago
    How is treating people equally "not even close" to complying with those laws? I feel like I'm misreading to your comment, but it seems like treating people equally is exactly the point of those laws.
    - crooked-v 7y ago
      If a person is interviewing for a supervisory or HR position, there's a lot more involved than just their personal behavior, and even with personal behavior, just saying "I treat everyone equally" in a blandly shallow manner suggests a lack of experience with or thought about clashes of perspective in an organization. Or, to use an analogy, consider interviewing someone who, when asked about their preferences and strategies for ensuring code quality, answers "I just write correct code in the first place". Even if they're correct in that statement, that's not the sort of person you want in charge of that subject, because most people don't work like that, even if they wish they could.
- sailfast 7y ago
  No, not if the book is wrong obviously . In this interview case, however, you’d want to be pretty specific about where you thought those flaws might be and suggest ways to make it even better. By “the book” I meant a well thought out process that follows the law, protects parties in a dispute, prevents retaliation, encourages reporting, and is well documented and understood. I’m probably missing a bunch of other best practices - not a certified HR Specialist. My only aim here was to distinguish between disputes that arise in politically charged areas vs. the handling of those disputes which, I would argue should not be charged at all but rather an efficient run-through of a dispute process that “works”.