Female Hiring Targets

km991148 · 06-07-2021 2:35pm

the-island-man wrote: »

References to any studies to back that statement up?

There are actually studies on the tendancy for those psychopathic traits succeeding at top level, but you'll need to take it at face value as I'm working off memory and not links. Need to DYOR a bit, but you should find them easily enough.

Fred Cryton · 06-07-2021 2:55pm

Smee_Again wrote: »

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

No doubt true. Men are also more willing to work the insane hours required to get ahead in a corporate setting.

But if you#re not in the top few percentile of intelligence to begin with, you probably won't make it near the top in the first place. And that applies to men and women. Another hard fact.

Smee_Again · 06-07-2021 2:57pm

the-island-man wrote: »

References to any studies to back that statement up?

21% of CEO's are psychopaths - its a WaPo article but I can't really be bothered looking for much better, plenty of literature on there out the topic. The post I replied to wasn't referenced so it was a bit of a flippant reply.

I remember reading a paper that put the incidence rate among women at between 0.3 - 0.7 to that of men, but I can't find it now but combining those 2 was the basis for my statement.

Fred Cryton · 06-07-2021 3:02pm

km991148 wrote: »

None of what you wrote is backed up by any mathematical proof that you offered..

Too many variables and untested assumptions there, including, but not limited to:
-Reasons behind why STEM numbers are lower for women
-How quality is measured, does raw intelligence equate to 'better' in general? Even in engineering Christ, even measuring intelligence is not a simple task!)?
-Assuming the top CEO job is related to ability (it's by far not the sole requirement).

This is the reality of the situation.

Notice you're trying to throw mud at IQ tests, used reliably for decades around the world, because you don't like the result ;-)

km991148 · 06-07-2021 3:11pm

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Notice you're trying to throw mud at IQ tests, used reliably for decades around the world, because you don't like the result ;-)

hmm ok, again your theory doesn't stand up - but that's ok - I don't expect everyone to understand scientific methods (or even how facts work) - doesn't matter how many winky faces you add!

There was no rampant conjecture in my post.

AndrewJRenko · 06-07-2021 3:48pm

hots wrote: »

And I've been in hiring cases where any close calls we were strongly encouraged to remember our diversity targets and make selections based on that, large MNC, 25/30 people given the same instruction for the hiring process - in case a specific example makes my opinion more acceptable.

You'd want to be a spectacularly dumb HR or senior manager to give an instruction to 25/30 people that would breach current employment law. It's only a matter of time before some of those 25/30 people are going to be on the other side of the interview table, going for internal promotions etc. If they know their employer is breaking the law, the employer is very exposed.

Making selections based on diversity targets when all other things are equal in terms of the quality of the candidate is legal. In any other circumstance, it could well constitute discrimination.

the-island-man wrote: »

Here is a pretty interesting read. A fair and balanced article from the Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2013/10/the-trouble-with-gender-targets

and before AndrewJRenko comes back stating that it's an article written in the American context I would like to say that I don't agree with him. We are one of the biggest beneficiaries from US Foreign Direct Investment in Europe and I don't agree that U.S workplace culture doesn't at least permeate into American MNC's based in Ireland. I think most people who have worked in MNC's would agree that most of the culture comes from the mothership!

Did you read the article? It doesn't recommend getting rid of gender targets. It recommends positioning them as part of strategic organisational development;

So while many organizations focus initially on targets, they usually wake up at some point to the fact that targets need to be integrated into a more strategic story. Gender balancing for its own sake doesn’t make sense to most managers. If you don’t take the time to make sense of the push for balance, you can create a backlash.

Of course US MNCs bring their management culture to Ireland. Then they operate within Irish employment law, which bans positive discrimination.

the-island-man wrote: »

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

You can label it whatever you like. That doesn't change Irish employment law, which bans positive discrimination.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

Given that there are no gender quotas in Ireland, your questionable claims are moot. I really wonder about your claimed direct link between IQ and position on the corporate ladder. What about EQ, what about sales ability, what about functional ability, what about the old school tie and the golden circle?

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

How would you expect this to happen , the other candidates will never know and management will all be very careful with any notes or documentation.

Discrimination claims happen all the time
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/search/?decisions=1&q=gender%20discrimination%20recruitment
If management are dumb enough to think they can get away with discrimination, they're probably dumb enough to screw up their notetaking and paperwork too.

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

Huge amount of jobs women don't want to do but they are being told they should be pursuing these careers.

Which jobs are women that women don't want to do are they being told they should be pursuing?

hots · 06-07-2021 4:51pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'd want to be a spectacularly dumb HR or senior manager to give an instruction to 25/30 people that would breach current employment law. It's only a matter of time before some of those 25/30 people are going to be on the other side of the interview table, going for internal promotions etc. If they know their employer is breaking the law, the employer is very exposed.

That's the reality, and absolutely for the internal promotions piece, the target for the next rank is 50:50, the existing mix is 70:30 and the mix of those as a potential for the promotion is similar, meaning the majority of promotions have to come from the 30, and that's exactly what happens/ed.

the-island-man · 15-07-2021 9:06am

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605122#Comment_117605122

I don't agree with the summary you've given of that article at all. It states that it's better to seek Employee buy in and engage with the staff before simply applying gender targets.

AndrewJRenko · 15-07-2021 2:09pm

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605782#Comment_117605782

I'd want to see the exact wording of the HR guidance on this, because the position represented here would almost certainly break the law.

AndrewJRenko · 15-07-2021 5:58pm

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117612063#Comment_117612063

Broadly yes. It is not against gender targets. It is suggesting the best approach to implementing gender targets.

tinytobe · 02-10-2021 7:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605122#Comment_117605122

As far as I know, there is no general legal basis, it's more down to the company or the industry one is in how things are lived in practical life. What I have seen in these regards is that this leads often to reverse discrimination to the male. It often bothers me if a new job is filled with a women, just to fulfill any kind of a quote system to employ more women. And then some companies or industries ( especially the IT sector ) is pretty active in creating things like "women's work day" or "women in the IT sector" etc.. but there is no equivalent for the male. Increasingly I feel discriminated as a man in the IT industry.

20 years ago, these things were a lot easier and quite possibly a lot fairer.

Workplaces haven't really gotten any better by HR introducing these mesures to increase women in the workforce.

AndrewJRenko · 02-10-2021 6:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966155#Comment_117966155

What companies have a quota system to employ more women?

What's the gender balance numbers like in your company and your industry?

tinytobe · 02-10-2021 6:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968237#Comment_117968237

In the American IT industry. I don't think that there is a quota system per se, also I don't have an insight into HR matters, but there is certainly an emphasis on that under the whole "diversity and inclusion doctrine". Not that diversity and inclusion is wrong, but that constant blabber about it doesn't make the environment any better and increasingly makes one as a man feel discriminated. Discrimination is to me not something which is to be picked out of a pre-defined catalogue but more something which is felt.

03-10-2021 2:12pm

Not that diversity and inclusion is wrong, but that constant blabber about it doesn't make the environment any better and increasingly makes one as a man feel discriminated.

I'd love to be able to say that a gender diversity initiative should make the work environment better for everyone. Sometimes it does. But sometimes in order to give women space in a room, men need to give up some of their space. You can't always have an 'everybody wins' scenario, especially when there are limits to the resources/opportunities available. I can understand how it might feel like discrimination, or like you're being stereotyped as privileged/the bad guy, but surely you can relate this to how discrimination feels for women and use it to gain a bit of perspective?

AndrewJRenko · 03-10-2021 2:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968255#Comment_117968255

Great, so no quotas then, good to have put that old canard to bed.

So what is the gender representation within the American IT industry? What is the gender representation in the C-suite? What was it like 20 years ago, better or worse?

the-island-man · 06-10-2021 10:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970579#Comment_117970579

What a load of nonsense. If you want equality across the board then there should be an equal obligation to reach parity across all industries. Would Females be willing to take up 50% of the roles in both dangerous and physically demanding sectors such as construction, Freight transportation and Taxi driving to name a few?

These diversity and gender targets seem to be very focused on office roles which will inevitably lead to discrimination against white males in that industry.

Donald Trump · 06-10-2021 10:51am

Let's see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxM8gCw_H0k

On a serious note, I worked in a large organisation with concrete "Diversity and Inclusion" targets. (Not in Ireland). It caused havoc. The main reason being that people were hired by managers - sometimes to be managers - who did not have the basic skills to do the job. But their managers needed to tick the boxes for their own targets so everyone had to suck it up. The useless ones couldn't be gotten rid of because then it would affect their line manager's metrics. I would not like to be in a similar environment again.

06-10-2021 11:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982539#Comment_117982539

I genuinely can't see how your point relates to mine.

As an aside, thanks for making me chuckle at your use of "Females" - haha! Those pesky Females, trying to steal our jobs and our wimmen.

tinytobe · 13-10-2021 5:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970719#Comment_117970719

The thing is, that "gender representation" as you call it wasn't any different 20 years ago, it was actually the same. It's just the language around it which has gotten worse. Lot's of discussion about "diversity and inclusion" or "anti discrimination" but the reality around it has gotten worse. Females just getting hired to fulfill a quota regulation but not having the right qualifications, or discrimination being a list of things to pick from what discrimination actually means, but not how you'd feel personally if you're discriminated against' but it's not on that "pre-defined list of what they consider discrimination".

Career perspectives in IT for women were great even 20 years ago, same as for immigrants, people of various colour and or different backgrounds, but the current attitude and shallow talk makes things worse, often resulting in reverse discrimination for men.

AndrewJRenko · 13-10-2021 11:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118015318#Comment_118015318

Are you sure it wasn't any different in the past? This suggests that things were worse in the past than they are now.

https://m.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/more-women-holding-top-roles-in-ireland-but-gender-balance-action-must-not-be-rushed-37886508.html

Did you speak to many women in coming to your conclusion?

tinytobe · 14-10-2021 10:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118017178#Comment_118017178

I think they should hire people based of their skills not based on their gender or any kind of quota. Women are not in a lesser situation in today's Ireland if they want to achieve. Woman's rights activists should rather focus on various Muslim countries where this is clearly not the case.

AndrewJRenko · 14-10-2021 5:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118018255#Comment_118018255

People keep talking about quotas but no one seems to have actual examples of companies that actually use quotas. Are you aware of any such companies?

tinytobe · 14-10-2021 5:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118020678#Comment_118020678

Look at Scandinavia or Germany.

Especially in Scandinavia it's mad.

the-island-man · 15-10-2021 1:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118020678#Comment_118020678

You think companies are that dim to write something down in a policy that is clearly discriminatory? Just because there is no written proof it doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Just look at the amount public inquiries, commissions of inquiry and tribunals of inquiries since the 90's in Ireland. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/tribunals_and_investigations/

There are well over a dozen of them. A lot of these involve members of the public service where there was wrong doing and nobody spoke up and that's in a sector where your job is very secure and you likely have support from a union. I think most people are aware how shamefully Maurice McCabe was treated or how badly survivors of abuse were treated by a supposedly Christian institution.

Imagine how reluctant people in profit driven American multinational are to speak up given that they can be managed out of a job a lot easier. It's easy to have an idealistic view that everyone should know right from wrong and it's straight forward to prove wrongdoing but in reality when there's mouths to feed nobody wants to be the martyr.

Also I've provided examples of companies previously but you've dismissed them as being American companies and they do not relate to Irish companies.

MrMusician18 · 15-10-2021 1:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118020678#Comment_118020678

Company I know of, in a very much male dominated industry, did have a 50:50 hiring policy for its graduate programme at least back in the early 2010's.

Given that 90% of graduates in this field were men and was reflected in the applications, almost every woman that applied was hired.

Strumms · 15-10-2021 3:43am

Will it stop at females ?

Will there be hiring targets for ethnic minorities, people from the LGTB community ? People with disabilities ? Religious, non religious people? It’s really become a fûcking mine field thanks to the absolute tossers who advocate and implement this craic, hiring 4 people hire the most talented 4... fûck what they look like, where they are from, what sexuality or gender they are... the most suitable and talented people.. end of..

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 4:06am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118020788#Comment_118020788

So no specific company policies that you're aware of then?

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 4:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118021967#Comment_118021967

So tell me how you implement a policy like this without writing it down? How many people involved in hiring need to buy in and agree with the unwritten policy to actually make it happen? Specifically, how many men need to implement the unwritten policy when hiring, knowing clearly that it discriminates against themselves when they are going for internal promotion?

It's never been easier for whistle blowers to speak out whether publicly or anonymously or to the press or to industry groups.

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 4:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118021970#Comment_118021970

What was the company please? Such a measure, as you've described it, would be in breach of employment law in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 4:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118022028#Comment_118022028

Will it start at females would be a better question.

Can we take it that you'd prefer to condemn many people with disabilities to lives of welfare dependency rather than actually address some of the lowest levels of employment in Europe?

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0921/1248202-employment-disability/

Strumms · 15-10-2021 11:52am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118022040#Comment_118022040

No, seeing as I never said that.

what I did say was the most suitable, appropriate candidate should be hired, regardless of their gender, or anything else.

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 1:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023122#Comment_118023122

Current recruitment practices are riddled with bias. People recruit people who look like them, sound like them, went to the same school or college as them.

Smart employers like Microsoft have worked out you need to change how you do things and move away from the traditional processes to get great candidates.

https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/04/07/microsoft-employees-autism/20193/

I'm amazed that 'everyone knows' about this quota-based recruitment that is apparently victimising the middle-aged white man, but no-one can point to a specific example of this happening in Ireland.

15-10-2021 2:06pm

the most suitable, appropriate candidate should be hired, regardless of their gender, or anything else.

But what if it's their gender that makes them seem the most suitable? Recruitment processes give us an indication of how a candidate might perform. It can't tell us definitively who is the most suitable. In many cases, there is more than one suitable individual, and things like gender start to give certain applicants an edge.

If you were a male interviewer, and you have two candidates, same quals, same experience (on paper), both interviewed well, both seem a good fit for the team, and both get along well with the interview panel. One is a woman. The other is a man who played for the same secondary school rugby team as you. You know you'll always have rugby to talk about, and his life seems vaguely similar to your own. You relate to him. You also know that many of your client contacts are men who also went to rugby schools. The man will always have an edge.

Would you see that as a pattern worth tampering with, or do you think the woman should have known better than to enter a male-dominated field?

Strumms · 15-10-2021 7:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118023723#Comment_118023723

I have examples...

a team of 9 people of whom I was one... 8 males and 1 female...

the girl was 100% the best performer, brilliant employee, nice person, was promoted and was replaced by another female despite there being two more suitable candidates, she lasted two years, the rest of us pulling her along... a ball-ache for us all, her replacement who had been overlooked and male applied again and turned into the best colleague we ever had..

if you don’t hire the most suitable candidate based on talent, experience, personality and overall suitability you are screwing your existing employees and customers... talent decides not gender.

AndrewJRenko · 15-10-2021 8:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025592#Comment_118025592

And this was 'quota based recruitment' how?

16-10-2021 11:41am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025592#Comment_118025592

Just to point out my own position, I don't support forcing a gender requirement on an individual hire. If the female applicant was clearly going to be sub-par, the interviewing panel shouldn't have put her in the role. It's as cruel to her as it is to the team. But I also think your example here has an element of confirmation bias to it.

First female hire is good = grand stuff, no comment re quotas.

Second female hire turns out to be a bad hire = gender quotas are bad, and serve to screw your employees and customers.

I know you say there were two other candidates that were more suitable, but it's possible that the interviewing panel really did think she was suitable for the role, and it just turned out to be a bad hire. Happens all the time regardless of quotas.

The horror story of quotas is the idea that completely incompetent staff will be hired for no reason other than their gender. If an interviewing panel does this, they're being completely negligent. I'd propose that initiatives to increase the likelihood of female hires should be implemented instead, and tracked with high-level (department to organisation-wide) targets that should be aimed for but which do not impose such a strict requirement that any particular role ends up with an absolute gender requirement.

OMM 0000 · 16-10-2021 8:03pm

Gender quotas are absolutely stupid.

It doesn't matter most programmers are male. It doesn't matter most nurses are female.

Let people choose the job they want. Let the best people get hired and promoted.

Stop interfering by trying to force women to do jobs they don't want, and by discriminating against men so some meeker and less qualified women can get ahead.

Yes, it's always the men being discriminated against, I never hear anyone forcing 50% of teachers to be male, or 50% of biologists to be male.

Stop interfering in other people's careers and mind your own business.

kathleen37 · 16-10-2021 8:21pm

I recruited my own teams for years. Loved when I was able to hire females (in a historically male dominated field) but what sort of fool would I have been had I just employed them because of their gender?

Gender equality in the workplace doesn't just mean in the hiring process. I spent lots of time speaking at schools/colleges to specifically target girls to take a look at a career that at one time - thank god so much less now - wasn't an obvious choice for them.

the-island-man · 16-10-2021 9:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118027737#Comment_118027737

Would you mind going into a bit more detail on the initiatives to increase the likelihood of female hires ?

Are setting targets not pointless unless the company intend to game the system to get what they want?

17-10-2021 12:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118030449#Comment_118030449

Well I'm no expert, a company would be best off hiring a consultant or training up a working group to develop initiatives, but I'd guess the most important step would be to include it in the company's CSR objectives, or even include it in the company's values statement and objectives, that they intend to improve gender representation within the company, and then setting those aforementioned targets. That sets expectations.

Follow on tasks from that could include reviewing job specs for bias, making sure there are women included in interview panels, developing internal policies that support women, promoting women's career development, setting up mentoring initiatives, networking groups, reviewing existing policies for bias (especially performance management policies), analysing company culture for improvements.

AndrewJRenko · 17-10-2021 6:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118030149#Comment_118030149

Can you provide a source for your 6-10% claim please? Are you referring to comparable roles here?

AndrewJRenko · 17-10-2021 6:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118030078#Comment_118030078

Good job we don't have gender quotas in Ireland so.

What are you so afraid of?

Buddy Bubs · 17-10-2021 7:07am

My GF was finishing up a masters in a certain discipline and my brother, who works in same area for a well known Irish company that everyone here will know and probably used, was getting prompted and offered to recommend her for his job. In his words to me, they're desperate to hire women she'd definitely get the job. He wasn't part of interview panel or anything.

She did the interview and was offered the job, didn't take it though as it involved a lot of commuting, funny enough he had to do 2 interviews for his job a few years previous.

17-10-2021 12:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118031282#Comment_118031282

So a woman with:

a Masters and
an inside recommendation from the person previously in the role
for an open role at a company that lacks women

got through the interview process in one round when the last guy had two. What point is this supporting?

Are you saying that instead of quotas, the panel of interviewers must have been aware/been made aware that their industry disproportionately favoured male hires, so they purposely took a pro-women attitude, and that this was a more effective way to get the right woman into the job instead of just putting 'any woman' into the job? I'd agree there.

Or are you implying that your GF wasn't competent for the role and you think secret quotas got her hired unfairly?

the-island-man · 17-10-2021 12:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118031005#Comment_118031005

Most of what you mentioned are good initiatives (once the supports are there for both sexes). I think ensuring a woman is on the interview panel is good so long as the woman is able to effectively interview the candidate, in some smaller companies you may not have a woman or a man involved in particular areas.

but I don't think it's an unrealistic assumption that if the these targets were referenced in the company's CSR or Values that it would make it into performance goals for upper management. Then it's possible to have a scenario of some greedy director (male or female) putting downward pressure to meet their goal.

AndrewJRenko · 17-10-2021 1:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118032018#Comment_118032018

Do you think it would be possible to keep the existence of specific performance goals secret, given that the people who are making recruitment decisions will be the same people who are going through internal recruitment processes for promotions?

Buddy Bubs · 17-10-2021 2:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118032011#Comment_118032011

I'm saying it was a done deal as soon as she applied

17-10-2021 2:29pm

I think ensuring a woman is on the interview panel is good so long as the woman is able to effectively interview the candidate, in some smaller companies you may not have a woman or a man involved in particular areas.

I'd agree that it's not always appropriate, but I do think that where a role/team is identified as having a gender imbalance, it's worth pulling in a woman from another area of the business, just to act as a presence on the panel. Some companies already have a policy that above a certain level of seniority, a HR representative must be on the panel, even if they're not actively asking questions or understand the technical parts of the role. I think a similar policy for female representation could be beneficial. It would have to be situation dependent though, and not detract from the ability to form a core technical panel.

but I don't think it's an unrealistic assumption that if the these targets were referenced in the company's CSR or Values that it would make it into performance goals for upper management. Then it's possible to have a scenario of some greedy director (male or female) putting downward pressure to meet their goal.

Yeah I'd agree, poor culture is always a risk though. I'd wonder if someone with the right expertise would have a solution for that.

OMM 0000 · 18-10-2021 9:22am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118031268#Comment_118031268

Discrimination.

Do I really need to spell this out to you?

AndrewJRenko · 18-10-2021 12:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118034872#Comment_118034872

You do need to spell out where the "anyone forcing 50%" scenarios are happening in the real world.

Female Hiring Targets

Comments