Timeline for How to avoid being sexist when trying to employ someone to function in a very sexist environment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2023 at 18:47 | comment | added | gidds | How would you ensure that the candidate gets a fair impression of what it would be like to actually work with the IT team? How would you avoid the IT team being on their ‘best behaviour’, or not interacting enough with the candidate for their culture to become obvious? | |
| Sep 28, 2020 at 18:21 | comment | added | work | Myles thanks for your answer to my other post that I deleted. It was a good and thought out answer and I appreciate it. Upvoted this one to compensate. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 20:48 | comment | added | Myles | @FeRD Given the general tone on this site of people to "trial runs" at work I would avoid use of that phrase or implication. People get bent out of shape about the workplace audition, feeling that the employer is stealing from them. To avoid this the suggestion is pay the candidate however if that's not already part of your hiring process good luck introducing it. As per the implication that you are wanting to check the candidate rather than have the candidate check the company, it may be ambiguous as text but I think it would be perfectly clear when spoken aloud over the phone. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 18:39 | comment | added | rkeet | @Myles As the OP needs an "in-between" person, my comment was to ensure you have someone not only both sides are comfortable with, but someone who is comfortable with both sides. You can't have someone accepted by both sides if only one of these sides accepts the candidate. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 15:48 | comment | added | FeRD | I'd go even harder on the "ball in their court" aspect of the proposal — make it clear that the point of the "trial run" is for the CANDIDATE to form impressions of both teams, so they can decide whether they want the job. The way it's phrased now ("to meet with both to get a feeling for how well you'll click with them both") makes it sound like YOU want to evaluate how the candidate performs with both groups. I'd say something like, "so you can experience both sides of the role and get a feel for the work you'd be doing if you accept". | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 14:54 | comment | added | Myles | @rkeet I'd try to avoid disparaging the other team in any way as the end goal is to fill this role with someone who will stay. It's counter productive to poison the well like that before letting the candidate make their own opinion. I tried to come up with a neutral phrasing that did not say anything negative about either team just implying that they are different. If you have a better way to phrase that I'm definitely open to it and possibly amending my answer. I'd avoid just doing a one-on-one with the other manager as that one person isn't the retention risk the OP is worried about. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 14:32 | comment | added | Myles | @bdsl Which is exactly why I started with the sentence that I did. That level of comfort will not be a deciding factor for the hiring manager, it will be a deciding factor for the candidate. This is a chance for them to walk in with their eyes open when deciding if they want to accept the offer that will be given to them in the next phase of the process. I would include the sentence about "it's important to me..." so that they concentrate specifically on fit in these meetings rather than viewing them as some additional request to show technical proficiency. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 14:23 | history | edited | Myles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 469 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2019 at 20:16 | comment | added | bdsl | I'm not sure it's appropriate to say "it's important to me that you are comfortable working with both". If you think someone might be uncomfortable for a reason related to a protected characteristic (i.e. their gender) then presumably factoring that comfort into the hiring decision would be unlawful discrimination. Maybe the candidate would be uncomfortable but that should be for them to consider, not the hiring manager. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 17:23 | comment | added | anaximander | @rkeet If phrased carefully (the phrasing in the answer is pretty good) then it's not actually saying "we're normal, they're weird", it's just stating that the two teams are different and they candidate will have to work with both. For some candidates, the "normal" team might be the one they have trouble with. For some, they'd be fine with either individually but have trouble trying to mesh with both at once. I think it's a pretty neutral and reasonable thing to say if presented properly. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 15:32 | comment | added | David Rice | @Pharap Very much this - I've turned down jobs because the culture was too brogrammer and I'm just not okay with that kind of bull. While the culture is probably worse for women, it's important to also give men the opportunity to run away from toxic culture. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 14:50 | comment | added | Aubreal | Great wording on the suggestion. It's important OP doesn't let the applicant know of her views of the IT dept. before the applicant gets to meet them herself. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 14:31 | comment | added | Mr.Mindor | @Pharap at least all candidates that get to a certain stage in the interview process. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 10:46 | comment | added | Aaron F | @rkeet that's a good idea. If the candidate will have to work closely with the IT manager then it could make sense to have an interview with them as well, giving the candidate a chance to get a feel for the type of person they are. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 9:36 | comment | added | cloudfeet | Doing the same for everyone isn't just a compliance issue either. The way the culture is described, some (perceived) male candidates would appreciate the heads-up as well - possibly not to an equivalent degree, but still. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 9:30 | comment | added | rkeet | Instead of this answer, why not simply involve some IT manager and/or team manager (depending on size of IT department) in the hiring process? Would save doing a, paraphrased: "Hey, we're normal, but them nerds there are weird, but you'll get used to them or quit" before he/she has the chance to form their own opinion. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 5:47 | comment | added | Pharap | It's important to point out that this should be offered to all candidates, male or female, otherwise it could be (quite rightly) perceived as discrimination. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 4:11 | comment | added | l0b0 | Meeting the teams should be mandatory when interviewing someone to liaison between them. | |
| S Feb 28, 2019 at 22:20 | history | suggested | thatgirldm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixing grammar & spelling
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 22:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 28, 2019 at 22:20 | |||||
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:15 | history | answered | Myles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |