I interviewed two candidates today and both were equally good. One male and One Female. We only have one position to fill. After submitting the feedback to the HM, the HM out of blue advised the panel to hire the lady candidate on the basis of diversity. How just is that? I cannot argue with the HM but how often do you see this happen at your workplace? Am I wrong to feel we're not doing this right or should i move on?
Raced based hiring is discrimination.
They were equally good....why not pick the woman? If she was worst then that’s different. Wtf were you going to do otherwise, ask Siri to flip a coin?
just because some groups had it harder in the past doesn't mean they do today if the hiring process is based on skills and fairness. that's why ties shouldn't be decided to the favor of the minorities because otherwise majorities will have it harder. we would have to do the same thing in reverse in 20 years.
"if the hiring process is based on skills and fairness". It's not. It never was, and it never will be. Hiring is done by humans, who are by definition prejudiced (conscious or unconscious bias). The only way to counter is to be deliberate in your choices towards building a diverse team. I'm obviously assuming that a diverse team is better than a team hired purely based on "skill." If you disagree with that, by all means, keep digging deeper on the two candidates to find the one difference that makes the male better.
The hiring process is created by men and for men. They never thought that colored men and women would ever be in the workforce, centuries ago when it was conceived, so the process doesn't account for those differences. Hiring process is not based on skills and is not fair
That's the flaw. The hiring process is not a simple meritocracy. If I'm hiring an SDE I don't just want one that codes the best. I want one who codes well, can be part of a team, has good ideas, and can help build a great product.
But your colleague is saying that the person who least resembles the other members of your team, whom you hired for their all-around competencies, is the best fit by default.
That's not what he/she is saying, at least not what I understand. Either way, my original question still stands. This is even a question only because the manager selected the female to increase diversity. This wouldn't be a post if the male was hired (as evidenced by the lack of those kind of posts in this forum). That in itself, speaks volumes about the fact that you only have a problem with hiring females.
Don't hire the female she would be miserable working for a boss like you
Women are perceived as less technically competent than their equivalent male peers. So if the interviewers rated them the same, the woman is probably actually better
This.
Lol, each person is different, maybe some people have stronger biases against male candidates? Your statement doesn't make sense.
You should move on. Hiring decisions aren’t made out of the blue. You aren’t the hiring manager and are jumping to conclusions without all of the information.
1. I mean if they are equal, why not? Either way would be fair. 2. If they aren’t equally strong candidates, then speak up at that debrief you, cowardly ass. 3. A lot of hiring goes in in Cognizant I gather.
This is comical. Race and Gender for so long has been used to de-merit candidates, so now you have an issue with making at merit in favor of the candidate? Smh
And picking the male would be fair? Would you have written this post if the hire was male?
There could have been further rounds to judge them . . Or we could have discussed the package expectations and optimised our budget . .
Why male or female based on diversity hire?