4 ms·
Mm. It’s certainly good to work at the other end of the funnel (thank you!) but it also won’t help address pattern matching that people do in hiring. It’s an i
by kenferry 2y ago
Mm. It’s certainly good to work at the other end of the funnel (thank you!) but it also won’t help address pattern matching that people do in hiring.
It’s an incredibly natural thing for people to hire people like themselves, or people they meet their image of what a top notch software dev looks like. It requires active effort to counteract this. One can definitely argue about the efficacy of DEI approaches, but I disagree that JUST increasing the strength of applicants will address the issue.
- subarctic 2y agoYes it will! That pattern matching is based on prior experience and if the entire makeup of candidates changes that'll cause people to pattern match differently. If old prejudices are taking a while to die out, it won't be long until someone smart realizes there's whole groups of qualified candidates who aren't getting the same offers as others and hires them
- joshuamorton 2y ago> it won't be long until someone smart realizes there's whole groups of qualified candidates who aren't getting the same offers as others and hires them There's an argument to be made that this is exactly what pipeline-level DEI programs are!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kenferry 2y agoThat's an efficient market theory, and it's extremely optimistic about how real people work.
- Manuel_D 2y agoIf the goal is to prevent people from being biased, why not anonymize candidate packets? Zoom interviews can also be anonymized easily. If it's the case that equally strong, or stronger, candidates are being passed over anonymization should solve this. Rather than working to anonymize candidates, every DEI policy I've witnessed sought to incentivize increasing the representation of specific demographics. Bonuses for hitting specific thresholds of X% one gender, Y% one race. Or even outright reserving headcount on the basis of race and gender. This is likely because the target levels of representation are considerably higher than the representation of the workforce. At Dropbox the target was 33% women in software developer roles. Hard to do when ~20% of software developers are women.
- gr3ml1n 2y agoIf you anonymize applications you don't hire the 'right' ratio.
- eapressoandcats 2y agoAnonymization is probably an under tried idea. Various orchestras switched to blind auditions and significantly increased the number of women they hired.
- shreyshnaccount 2y agopeople can cheat in anon interviews?
- Manuel_D 2y agoThey can cheat non-anonymous interviews too. An alternative is to have candidates go in person to an office to interview, but the grading and hiring panel only sees anonymized recordings of the interview.