3 ms·
We may be violently agreeing here; Violence is completely counter to my way of being - so No. What is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they
by vanusa 5y ago
We may be violently agreeing here;
Violence is completely counter to my way of being - so No.
What is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they know someone else, over a more qualified candidate who doesn't know that person already. We agree this is bad, yes?
We keep going in circles - with this idea that person that someone in the company already "knows" (or who came in via a referral anyway) gets the job at the expense not just of a comparably qualified (but not known to the company) candidate, a hypothetical more qualified candidate. You just keep assuming that this what happens when companies act on referrals (and implicitly, that it happens a lot).
That's now that I see happening, when referrals are made. But if it's what you want to believe, then it's what you want to believe - and there probably isn't anything I'll be able to say to dissuade you from this belief.
- TameAntelope 5y agoViolent agreement is just a term for when people seem to be disagreeing but actually aren't. [0] If that is completely counter to your way of being, then it's possible your way of being isn't compatible with the concept of constructive argument. And I'm confused about where I said anything about certainty. I'm not talking about how all companies operate all of the time, I'm talking about how some companies operate an unfortunate number of times. > Holding everything else constant, from job title to industry to location, female and minority applicants were much less likely to report receiving an employee referral than their white male counterparts. More specifically, white women were 12% less likely to receive a referral, men of color were 26% less likely and women of color were 35% less likely. [1] This is not good. Can we agree on that? [0] https://wiki.c2.com/?ViolentAgreement https://wiki.c2.com/?ViolentAgreement [1] https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-to-use-employee-referrals-without-giving-up-workplace-diversity https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-to-use-employee-referrals-withou...
- vanusa 5y agoI'm not talking about how all companies operate all of the time, I'm talking about how some companies operate an unfortunate number of times. In between these opposite extremes -- your language clearly indicates that you think this level of what we might call "aggravated bias" (hiring not just someone in your network; but hiring them over a more qualified candidate, presumed to exist and be interested in your opportunity) is commonplace, or something close to it. Such that in your mind, "including referrals in your hiring funnel" == aggravated bias (in the sense above), basically. As to the bias stats you liked to: the findings interesting, to say the least -- if they can be validated. Unfortunately the link to the original Payscale "study" seems to be broken (if we can call it that -- since remember, this is the work of a private company, with products to push).
- TameAntelope 5y ago> Such that in your mind, "including referrals in your hiring funnel" == aggravated bias (in the sense above), basically. Can you show where I said anything approaching this? I do not believe this, nor do I believe I said or even suggested this to be the case.
- vanusa 5y agoI'm asserting the practice among those in power of favoring relatives, friends, or even friends of friends over other, more qualified candidates is a contributing factor to that diversity problem.
- TameAntelope 5y agoNot sure where in that statement I referenced hiring funnels.
- vanusa 5y agoI'd continue, but you're getting awful slippery.
- TameAntelope 5y agoYou made an assumption that turned out not to be true. That's okay, it happens!
- CRConrad 5y ago"Referenced", in the sense of even bringing it up in a discussion all about hiring funnels, perhaps?