8 ms·
Is this work for some sort of legal compliance reason or just to be more fair or effective? If the latter, perhaps defining the groups as genders is handicappin
by exporectomy 6y ago
Is this work for some sort of legal compliance reason or just to be more fair or effective? If the latter, perhaps defining the groups as genders is handicapping yourself. A lot of the things you mentioned are more like personality differences that happen to be correlated with gender. I guess it's not up to you to change the scope of your work but more accurate people-types than genders sounds like it would be more ethical.
This comment is motivated by personal experience. I'm a man but I used to very much "won’t apply for a job unless [I] meet almost all of the listed requirements". It felt great early on because I almost always got hired for any job I applied for! I'd guess that the vast majority of jobs I've applied for in my entire life have at least reached interview stage. But I also haven't got far in my career and fear it may be over for good now because I was too cautious and underconfident. Only recently, I've learned to disregard all the "preferred" criteria and apply to interesting jobs if I have all of the "required" or "must" criteria. But now I wonder if even that's being too strict.
- Oras 6y agoI am doing it to be fair, effective and help companies to improve their job descriptions. But I haven't decided yet which approach to take, mainly because, as you mentioned, these points could be just personality differences and I appreciate that the study I mentioned might not have the complete picture, so I need to research more. As for your point regarding "meeting all requirements", I can relate to it. This supports the theory of listing the absolute requirements to get more applications instead of copy/pasting everything from other job descriptions. This improvement in itself makes it a win-win situation.