Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    791 points 317070 | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.628s | source | bottom
    Show context
    turc1656 ◴[] No.15010817[source]
    "In the name of diversity, when we fill quotas to check boxes, we fuck it up for the genuinely amazing women in tech."

    Precisely. This goes directly to the core of the issue and what I had brought up on the thread recently about the Google employee who got fired. Specifically, if companies were truly interested in fairness, the only mandate for the interview process would be to hire the best person, no exceptions. By doing this you treat both sexes fairly and give everyone an equal chance. Otherwise, you end up with "reverse sexism", which the author does not explicitly say, however she does essentially admit to in her description of the hiring loop:

    "After some rounds of low to no success, we start to compromise and hire women just because we have to"

    The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is she hired at least a few women over men which she thought were better candidates simply because "we have to". That's a problem.

    Overall, though, I thought her piece was well written and she seems to get at the real issue and even has a possible solution that doesn't involve just hiring women for purposes of optics only - fighting the battle far earlier and getting girls interested young so that they choose to enter these fields at a higher rate than they currently are doing.

    replies(13): >>15010996 #>>15011144 #>>15011216 #>>15011226 #>>15011232 #>>15011302 #>>15012064 #>>15012350 #>>15012733 #>>15013052 #>>15014563 #>>15014961 #>>15015689 #
    kurthr ◴[] No.15010996[source]
    I hear you when you say,"the only mandate for the interview process would be to hire the best person, no exceptions". It just sounds like an HR platitude.

    If you know how to do that, I actually think you have a multi-$B idea! Unless you mean "cultural fit", or "went to the same school I did" as the best person, I'm doubtful you have one though. I've done enough interviewing and worked with enough people to know that even the best hiring managers turn away good candidates and get a few duds.

    Once you're into real hiring statistics you have to be very careful of confirmation bias and "I just like this guy"ism even after the fact... they look and act like your successful hires. It's hard to even say, unless you're personally looking at their work on a regular basis and know what direction they're being given.

    replies(5): >>15011178 #>>15011194 #>>15021171 #>>15029752 #>>15062376 #
    microcolonel ◴[] No.15011178[source]
    > I hear you when you say,"the only mandate for the interview process would be to hire the best person, no exceptions". It just sounds like an HR platitude. If you know how to do that, I actually think you have a multi-$B idea! Unless you mean "cultural fit", or "went to the same school I did" as the best person, I'm doubtful you have one though. I've done enough interviewing and worked with enough people to know that even the best hiring managers turn away good candidates and get a few duds.

    Well, make me a multi-billionaire, I now present to you:

    BLIND SOURCING AND HIRING

    I should only share the details in private, you say it's a multi-billion dollar idea and I'd hate to tip off the competitors.

    In all seriousness, though, I know this is challenging. Especially at Google, there's still an opportunity for trouble after you've been hired but not yet assigned; though I doubt it would be enough of a problem to trash the whole system.

    The only reason not to do blind hiring is if it produces results which are indistinguishable from standard hiring.

    replies(2): >>15011358 #>>15011881 #
    1. humanrebar ◴[] No.15011358[source]
    > The only reason not to do blind hiring is if it produces results which are indistinguishable from standard hiring.

    Or the fact that it's not really possible. Right now, most software engineering jobs are pretty communication heavy. Almost all company cultures contain a non-trivial amount of verbal communication, so with that premise, it's reasonable to have candidates verbally describe technical things or even make technical arguments.

    Once you're listening to real voices, it's difficult to pretend that the hiring is blind.

    The famous study involving auditions for positions in an orchestra worked really well because you could hide the person behind a screen and judge an entire work product without knowing anything about the instrumentalist.

    Now, if most software jobs include a heavy remote work component some day, it might be more reasonable to throw a somewhat detailed spec at a candidate, have them code up a solution, then show the code (and only the code) to people evaluating the work product. But most devs don't have a day-to-day that looks like implementing textual programming problems for strangers.

    replies(4): >>15011865 #>>15012549 #>>15014925 #>>15017485 #
    2. Retric ◴[] No.15011865[source]
    You can setup interviews with text chat and screen shares at a large company without including someones voice or picture. Some places also remove names and other details from resumes.

    Most companies don't do this in part because text chat introduces other biases, but also because most people ignore their own bias.

    replies(1): >>15012126 #
    3. sah2ed ◴[] No.15012126[source]
    > Companies don't do this in part because text chat introduces other biases, but also because most people ignore their own bias.

    Mostly likely it is because it doesn't mirror how they work. (Text chat is SoP for remote-first work, but remote-first is far from the norm.)

    4. rbanffy ◴[] No.15012549[source]
    > Once you're listening to real voices,

    Use a voice scrambler.

    replies(2): >>15012874 #>>15015450 #
    5. thecrazyone ◴[] No.15012874[source]
    thats what i was thinking. Everyone should be made to sound like darth vader and now we've an interview process to die for :P
    replies(1): >>15013144 #
    6. rbanffy ◴[] No.15013144{3}[source]
    Maybe Donald Duck
    7. sitkack ◴[] No.15014925[source]
    Double blind. We do it in science, then do it hiring.
    replies(1): >>15062373 #
    8. imron ◴[] No.15015450[source]
    People have tried that... specifically to show that women were being discriminated against, but guess what happened when it was implemented?

    They found that contrary to their initial hypothesis, women with voices modulated to sound like men were still not getting hired at the same rate as the men masked to sound like women. Not only that, but they found women modulated to sound like men did worse than unmodulated women, and men modulated to sound like women did better than unmodulated men:

    http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

    replies(1): >>15017251 #
    9. HeavyStorm ◴[] No.15017251{3}[source]
    One very interesting finding of the study is that woman and men are faring equally once the attrition is removed.

    It seemed to me that the natural conclusion was that woman have lower confidence and thus performed worse at interviews.

    And this is a deep realization for me, because it pushes me in the direction of current diversity policies. You see, if there is perceived bias against you, then you lose confidence. So we must, for a while, try our best to remove that perfection. That might mean hiring more woman even if they don't seem to perform as well as men, because, once we have done that for a while, woman will feel more confident and the good candidates will appear.

    In any case - whether my last paragraph makes sense or not - the conclusion of the experiment interviewing.io did is that only removing gender perception during the interview process isn't enough, for woman may already have been affected by the bias and thus will perform worse than men during the interview.

    So we come back to the conclusion that we must invest to bring woman to tech early - during college or even high school - and fight biases there.

    It's a long road anyway, isn't it?

    10. zimpenfish ◴[] No.15017485[source]
    > The famous study involving auditions for positions in an orchestra

    And even there they had to put carpet down / remove shoes to hide the difference in shoe sounds when they walked to the performance area.

    https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...

    "the telltale sounds of a woman's shoes allegedly influenced some jury members such that aspiring musicians were instructed to remove their footwear"

    11. candiodari ◴[] No.15062373[source]
    Double blind hiring famously does not result in gender balance (and even less in ethnic balance). This is called the funnel problem.

    So that wouldn't solve matters.