5 ms·

We happily take anyone qualified and I get my bonus. But as mentioned, percentage of female employees is a KPI and it makes my boss looks good and it makes the

We happily take anyone qualified and I get my bonus. But as mentioned, percentage of female employees is a KPI and it makes my boss looks good and it makes the CEO happy in all hands meetings.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
My properties ensure that I won't face quotas that would be a barrier for emplyoment (well maybe my gender, I'm male), so, I'm just curious, so what if there's one position to fill, the male candidate scores 60%, and the female one scores 58% (using my hypothetical ranking system which actually works and is fair, etc, etc), so just slightly lower. Would your company pick the female candidate in this case? I guess answering this question "the wrong way" would get a lot of butthurt people showing up to this thread, so feel free to not answer.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  People need to realize is actual support for diversity means internalizing there is a benefit. So if you actually believe there is a benefit to having a team of men and women (I do), then it's not "wrong" to let that guide you to the woman when any score above a 50% indicates someone who will be able to actually do the work.
  - angry_octet 5y ago
    You're pushing shit uphill with that argument on HN. A lot of these guys have never worked on a team with anything resembling gender balance, and they have an irrational fear of women.
- everforward 5y ago
  Not OP, but I've seen some of this (though not terribly often). I don't think I've ever seen it come to a head and be explicitly about an attribute like that. I think that would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Usually what I see is faster movement through the recruiting pipeline. In your case, the woman scores 58% a week before the man takes the test. There's no overt pressure to just accept her score and move on. She's just here, qualified, and ready to save us from having to do more interviews haha. I don't have a poignant take on whether that's a good or bad thing. It definitely feels better than how I imagine having to pick between the two would, thought it still feels discriminatory. Then again, diversity in some sectors is low, so perhaps it makes sense for the hiring pipeline to give them some form of advantage, and this might be the least bad option. The whole thing is a mess of moral ambiguity.
shultays 5y ago
I am an engineer that involves in hiring (technical interviews, assignment reading (we have a home assignment for candidates)) and I have a couple experiences in which I felt like my decision was overruled. One was a female applicant. I was reading her assignment and felt like it was subpar and my decision was a thumbs down. Later we went forward with the application to the technical interviews because it was a female and we "really needed to hire one" (to be clear, I didn't even know it was a female until my decision is overruled. We don't receive CVs or names while reviewing home assignments) The other was a minority from a different country. My decision was thumbs down because the applicant basically lied in his CV about his past experience. HR overruled that by saying something like "...in his culture it is hard for people to admit their weaknesses..." and to top it off "we don't have anyone in our company from country X!" and he got hired. So yea, positive reinforcement means you are not really looking for qualification and most things can be ignored to fill some quotas. And you won't be getting that bonus when someone else refers a minority that gets hired.
- shultays 5y ago
  And to add, when I was hired I was also "first employee from country Y". Still wondering if I was a diversity hire
- jcun4128 5y ago
  It is crappy to think you got a job not because you deserved it/good at it but yeah... Well if you need the opportunity I guess that's nice. I have played the poverty card before regarding student loans.
gladinovax 5y ago
Disgusting. And you are okay with it.

We happily take anyone qualified and I get my bonus. But as mentioned, percentage of female employees is a KPI and it makes my boss looks good and it makes the CEO happy in all hands meetings.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

My properties ensure that I won't face quotas that would be a barrier for emplyoment (well maybe my gender, I'm male), so, I'm just curious, so what if there's one position to fill, the male candidate scores 60%, and the female one scores 58% (using my hypothetical ranking system which actually works and is fair, etc, etc), so just slightly lower. Would your company pick the female candidate in this case? I guess answering this question "the wrong way" would get a lot of butthurt people showing up to this thread, so feel free to not answer.

BoorishBears 5y ago
People need to realize is actual support for diversity means internalizing there is a benefit. So if you actually believe there is a benefit to having a team of men and women (I do), then it's not "wrong" to let that guide you to the woman when any score above a 50% indicates someone who will be able to actually do the work.
- angry_octet 5y ago
  You're pushing shit uphill with that argument on HN. A lot of these guys have never worked on a team with anything resembling gender balance, and they have an irrational fear of women.
everforward 5y ago
Not OP, but I've seen some of this (though not terribly often). I don't think I've ever seen it come to a head and be explicitly about an attribute like that. I think that would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Usually what I see is faster movement through the recruiting pipeline. In your case, the woman scores 58% a week before the man takes the test. There's no overt pressure to just accept her score and move on. She's just here, qualified, and ready to save us from having to do more interviews haha. I don't have a poignant take on whether that's a good or bad thing. It definitely feels better than how I imagine having to pick between the two would, thought it still feels discriminatory. Then again, diversity in some sectors is low, so perhaps it makes sense for the hiring pipeline to give them some form of advantage, and this might be the least bad option. The whole thing is a mess of moral ambiguity.

shultays 5y ago

I am an engineer that involves in hiring (technical interviews, assignment reading (we have a home assignment for candidates)) and I have a couple experiences in which I felt like my decision was overruled. One was a female applicant. I was reading her assignment and felt like it was subpar and my decision was a thumbs down. Later we went forward with the application to the technical interviews because it was a female and we "really needed to hire one" (to be clear, I didn't even know it was a female until my decision is overruled. We don't receive CVs or names while reviewing home assignments) The other was a minority from a different country. My decision was thumbs down because the applicant basically lied in his CV about his past experience. HR overruled that by saying something like "...in his culture it is hard for people to admit their weaknesses..." and to top it off "we don't have anyone in our company from country X!" and he got hired. So yea, positive reinforcement means you are not really looking for qualification and most things can be ignored to fill some quotas. And you won't be getting that bonus when someone else refers a minority that gets hired.

shultays 5y ago
And to add, when I was hired I was also "first employee from country Y". Still wondering if I was a diversity hire
jcun4128 5y ago
It is crappy to think you got a job not because you deserved it/good at it but yeah... Well if you need the opportunity I guess that's nice. I have played the poverty card before regarding student loans.

gladinovax 5y ago

Disgusting. And you are okay with it.