Attractive People Have a Big Advantage in the Job Interview
forbes.com
forbes.com
See also:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereo...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising
chatGPT lectured me condescendingly on biases and intentions, as it does.
Bard just said No, life isn't fair.
The foundation of human society is subjugating (evolved animal) instinct, to evolved cultural expectations and behavioral norms.
It is fundamental in functional societies that instinct is not "denied," it is recognized as exactly that thing which society erects constructs and behavioral expectations around to manage.
Instinct may in most cases be unavoidable and inevitable.
Healthy participation in a healthy society means asserting will and cultivating habits which correct for, guard against, and render unproblematic, these things.
NB I say "propaganda" because there is a relentless subtext (now, often overtly stated and championed, especially among shills for toxic masculinity) that "men are unable to control themselves, and it is not just inappropriate but immoral to expect them to." Ask any seventh grade boy you know about Tate and his ilk... then educate and push back.
Beauty is generally more socially constructed then biological.
That became a matter of some consideration, because there were arguments that she would be too disruptive within the office because of her age, appearance, and gender.
What's fascinating is that the "right" answer was not clear here. Should we consider those factors, effectively making her personal characteristics a negative, or should we continue with the knowledge that she would likely get too much attention (some of which she might find uncomfortable)?
In the end, we chose a male candidate who seemed to be a better fit based on skills and academic focus. But had it been an equal match based on background alone, I think we still would have chosen the man.
FWIW, I was providing only analysis of the candidates based on their in-person interview performance primarily related to general problem solving, so I did not affect the selection based on those personal factors.
I think you've misidentified the problem. The issue has nothing to do with the applicant, and everything to do with a team culture that would find it 'disruptive' to have a member who was young/female/attractive.
The right answer is to work on fixing that culture.
Why? What if the company is OK with their monoculture?
Or what if they're OK with dealing with the higher cost of cultural transition later once they are more profitable? Kind of like ignoring tech debt - ignoring cultural debt. Or maybe they're OK with staying a smaller size and have no need for more inclusive culture?
Just spitballing, looking at a company like Riot Games or Blizzard who are now dealing with the cultural fallout (lawsuits etc) after years of ignoring "cultural debt". But what if they hadn't ignored it? Would they be as successful as they are today?
Maybe they succeeded in part because of their now "toxic" culture and they are paying their debts that they ignored, or maybe they succeeded in spite of their "toxic" culture.
Diversity has a cost associated with it - namely that people need to be more empathetic and need to be much better communicators. Also people have trouble interviewing and picking out good candidates from different cultural backgrounds by default. A lot of people who are not used to diverse environments need training - training that they don't want to receive. Would be be better for society if people were able to deal with diversity? Yea, but maybe not for a startup or small company who would need to pay for it, especially in early stages
Because it's illegally discriminatory. I guess not all of us want to live in a better society, but those of us that do have voted for representatives that have made sexual discrimination illegal.
Currently, the company is restricted to only a subset of potential applicants (male, mid-to-late career, ugly-to-average) for any future hiring needs; that's quite limiting. There's also the possibility of lawsuits for various kinds of discrimination in the future.
edit: its most likely Netherlands and not the US, less familiar territory for me
You can also get a hungry lawyer to launch ads and try to find prior interviewers
Indeed, but that is something that will still take many years to change (assuming it will ever change). And in the given moment, we must do our best within the current scenario.
Also, it can be difficult to fix a culture when cultural norms vary quite significantly from region to region. It's not even one particular gender who is resistant to change depending on the region or the norm.
Countless men and women in countless contexts manage this every day. It's absolutely a culture rather than a nature issue.
I would argue acting decent(civilized) is the abnormal behavior, a recent phenomena.
IME, women are all too familiar with the challenges of working in a male-dominated workplace, but ultimately just want to pursue a career they enjoy. The “right” decision is to respect that drive and not to infantilize them by making decisions on their behalf.
Simply put: it seems that our teams preferred to have at least one female member, just to keep things interesting.
Women bring equilibrum in a men's team. My experience was that men cannot control their ego when there are no women around.