Re:Ex-Google recruiter: I was fired because I resisted “ille...
by richmarr on Friday March 02, 2018 @09:13AM
(#16501450)
> I think it diminishes the accomplishments of genuinely great minority/female employees to have this policy.
This view is contradicted by the weight of evidence for unconscious bias in hiring.
[Edit] Although obviously I don't know exactly what their policy was... maybe they were hiring badly, but the evidence suggests that people (of both sexes) discount the abilities of people in gender-incongruous roles.
> I would prefer identity to be neutralized somehow during the hiring process. The best person for the job, no matter your sex, colour, creed, disability.
I agree with this (disclaimer: this is what my startup does) but my reasoning is that quotas and other active methods (a) generate resentment, even though they have been shown to raise the bar not lower it, and (b) require a lot of study to determine the 'correct' targets... and even then it's a gamble... so are clumsy and expensive to get right.
It's a complicated topic though, not well suited to sweeping statements.
This view is contradicted by the weight of evidence for unconscious bias in hiring.
[Edit] Although obviously I don't know exactly what their policy was... maybe they were hiring badly, but the evidence suggests that people (of both sexes) discount the abilities of people in gender-incongruous roles.
> I would prefer identity to be neutralized somehow during the hiring process. The best person for the job, no matter your sex, colour, creed, disability.
I agree with this (disclaimer: this is what my startup does) but my reasoning is that quotas and other active methods (a) generate resentment, even though they have been shown to raise the bar not lower it, and (b) require a lot of study to determine the 'correct' targets... and even then it's a gamble... so are clumsy and expensive to get right.
It's a complicated topic though, not well suited to sweeping statements.