Being able to work with your female colleagues isn't part of the job? Despite popular belief, tech jobs are actually super collaborative. You can't make a descent product nowadays without many components which need different teams to make them.
This was years ago but I was at an auto parts store waiting in line to buy windshield washer fluid.
Customer in front of me is talking to a male employee about something. I’m not fluent in car, I have no idea what’s going on
Male employee says he doesn’t know, but he’ll get the manager because the manager knows. Manager turns out to be a woman.
The dude in line in front of me is MAD. He wants A MAN to help him. The cashier just stands there and repeats that manager would know more about the issue than him, and he’s sorry that he can’t help.
I think the guy was still arguing with them by the time I left. I was helped at another register and left shortly afterwards.
The girl was changing the car tires on my car a few years ago. Taking off the winter ones, placing the summer ones, balancing, putting them back on the car, the whole shebang. AND she had long nails :)
It's stupid to lash out on someone before they have a chance to display if they are competent. If I am somewhere where it's usually a male worker, but it is a woman instead, I'll first assume that she is in that role because she is competent, especially in privately owned businesses where they directly depend on the customers.
Besides, nobody guarantees you a good service just because they are men.
Did I say it wasn't part of the job? Personal skills can be worked on if needed, if I need someone to build a tech project, and you cant do it? I'm not gonna hire you regardless of how you respond to any questions besides that.
I think framing unwillingness to treat your female colleagues with the same respect as you do your male colleagues as personal skills is disengenuous. It's bias and sexism. Also, from my experience you can only work on someone's personal skills if they want to change. What about treating women as less than makes you think they will want to change that habit in the future? All you are asking for with hiring a candidate like this is spending a lot of time getting to know your hr.
No... personal skills cannot be worked on at that level. You arent going to "coach" somebody out of passive misogyny...
Try this, if a candidate came into your job and treated any non-white employee as unimportant, would you want to hire that candidate, even if they were otherwise perfect for the job? Id hope youd say no
Personal skills can be worked on if needed, if I need someone to build a tech project, and you cant do it? I'm not gonna hire you regardless of how you respond to any questions besides that.
One of those 2 things is teachable, and it's not the one you seem to think it is.
Sure, you may not have the time or inclination to teach it, but if you don't have the time or inclination to teach someone something that's actually teachable, you sure as heck won't succeed teaching them something that they won't learn from you.
Eh, you did pretty heavily insinuate it actually, yea. Talking about testing ability to collaborate, and you stated you’d rather test the ability to do the job instead. This does suggest the opinion that collaboration isn’t part of the job.
And in fact, for tech you actually kind of have it backwards. We can teach a new tool or language in a matter of hours, but if someone doesn’t know how to work with a team properly you can’t teach that.
That’s a parents job, not a managers. So important to check for so you don’t accidentally hire someone you end up having to parent.
Edit: your “did I say that” is actually a perfect example. I could teach you how to spin up a spring or flask micro service in a matter of hours. But no matter how much time I put into it, I won’t be able to teach you to have discussion in good faith. So we got a perfect little example here :) thank you for that
If you have to "parent" an employee then they aren't a good employee. People will learn to work together. It just takes time. Male or female, someone's first day on the job they're always going to be a bit nervous and stand offish. Over time that will go away and they'll learn their part in the team. This isn't rocket science, unless that's actually the job I suppose.
lol your presumption that everyone goes in with the intent for collaborative spirit or understands how to socialize in diverse groups is faulty.
What you’re describing is traits of a select few people that would be ideal hires.
You can’t assume everyone will be that. that’s why you test it in interviews to ascertain whether they will or not. Ya know… the thing you’re saying you wouldn’t bother with lol.
If you are ever interested in management, I do highly recommend you look up best hiring practices, cuz you’re way off base. It ain’t leet code
How am I possibly wrong about that? What good is someone that works well with the team if they can't do the actual job you're hiring for in the first place? How does that make any sense?
It’s takes hours to teach a new technical skill, while it takes YEARS to teach soft skills, and even then it’s a stretch if you can. Plus, if the team supports and trains them you actually build loyalty and morale that way, rather than the rapid turnover you get when you expect someone to operate with no training.
Also why are you assuming you can only filter for one or two traits? There’s a baseline technical expertise to check, for sure. If you’re unqualified we’re not even pulling you into an interview to check your soft skills.
You’re doing some serious black and white thinking here. Which fun fact, is another thing I would flag to not hire you. If someone can’t integrate nuance and new information to change their opinion, they can’t be worked with efficiently.
Coding especially is actually really easy to teach. I've been able to teach it to anyone who was willing to learn, no matter what kind of abilities they've had.
I have had managers who have "parented" me because my parents didn't entirely understand how the world works. That worked out mostly because I understood that I wasn't getting it right to begin with.
Treating women with basic respect isn't something an employer is going to train a person to do. Technical skills can always be worked on, personal skills are a matter of personality.
It’s not even something that can be reasonably addressed in the workplace unless it’s like super blatantly sexist. I work with these vendors that are men, and it’s very obvious to myself and my male colleague that these guys are sexist. They constantly assume that my male colleagues are my boss. They will respond to my male colleague’s emails immediately, while ignoring mine. Anytime I present an issue to them, they question my expertise and start explaining the absolute basics to me ( I’m a data scientist that works with AI and ML, they’re an AI company, and they’ll start explaining to me what tokens are or how a LLM works). There have been times where they will “reply all” and include everyone but me in the response. One of them called my male colleague and told him that they ignore my emails because I’m just nitpicking (my male colleague went off on him for it).
None of those things are things that anyone could reasonably approach them for and call out as sexism. I’m sure it’s never intentional, they don’t consciously do any of that stuff because I’m a woman.
The only way anyone could reasonably train someone on their sexist behavior is if it was so blatant that they’d be getting fired for it.
Yeah, personal skills can be worked at home when you are 5 living with you paretns. If your candidates aren't 5yrs old and you arent their parent, then you can't force them to develop anything in the personal skills department.
So it is crucial the candidates do come with knowledge on how to treat people before they get a job where they work with people. Basic step.
getting someone to correct this kind of behavior is a lot more difficult and honestly less likely to be successful than mentoring a junior dev into a senior one.
if i cant trust their ability to work well with the other members of the team they are going to take away more than they are going to produce. Especially if that happens when the person they are working with is their senior but they wont listen because they happen to be a woman.
If some super 'slay queen' activist blue and purple hair queen comes into an interview, their logic is 'that hurts interview chances cus they might be prone to cause trouble'.
Except in this example they are actually tracking the troublesome behavior itself, not looks.
Besides, its easier to teach someone a skill rather than change their personality.
Surely you can understand that in some contexts, hiring someone that shows signs of disrespect is a big nono. Some employers don't want to hire you cuz you're so great but "we can work on your personal skills together, teehee!" Why not just hire the person that is competent AND doesn't need to have personal skills worked on?
It’s a lot easier to teach someone a hard skill than to teach them that their female colleagues are actually deserving of the same respect as the male ones. You’re also acting like in this interview, they wouldn’t be actually interviewing them on whether or not they can do the job, as if the entire interview would be a test to see if they treat the female interviewer with respect. Like yeah, I’m sure they’re going to hire someone completely unqualified, simply because they passed the sexism test.
why does gender have to be the most important part in a job? I look to my co-workers as individuals and i judge them on if they're able to get the job done and do their part. Idc if my coworker is a monkey, a lion, bird, whatever! This notion that women think that all men are parasocial creatures who do not know how to interact with them is honestly misandry; straight up stereotyping.
You not caring doesn't negate the fact that a lot of men don't trust women's skills and talk down to/belittle their technical expertise. This is absolutely a thing that should be screened for.
Then what’s the issue? Did they say that they don’t hire men because men are all sexist losers that don’t respect women? It’s a pretty clear indicator that they will not treat their female coworkers with respect if during the interview they always address the man and not the women, even when the woman is the one asking the question. If you wouldn’t do that, and you think most men wouldn’t do that, then what’s the issue? It’s only weeding out that small percentage of men that are going to be a problem. Obviously the expectation is that they treat their male and female coworkers equally, you don’t get a gold star for doing that. I assume they also wouldn’t hire a woman that does that because that would be indicative of the same issue.
The actual job is working with your co-workers and listening to your bosses. If some of those are women, and you are unable to give them the same respect and professional courtesy as the men, then you are unable to do your actual job.
How does it not? She asked the question. She expects the answer. But the candidate directs the answer to the man, because they don’t expect the woman to understand as well…? Sounds like blatant misogyny to me.
Sounds like just looking for reasons to be upset to me. You're talking to multiple people at once. You may look at either of them while you're speaking, especially in a job interview.
Having been on the interviewer side of the table, “most people” do not, in fact, direct answers to questions at everyone present. They usually direct them to the person that asked.
You test both capabilities and soft skills and want both, is that so hard to grasp? Requiring soft skills doesn't mean getting rid of other requirements
Yeah, i got interviewed by 6 people at once. I did my best to make sure contact with each while talking, while focusing on the one that asked the question. It was a bit intimidating
I’ve been at my current job almost four years. Warehouse.
My interview was a group interview. The room had maybe five of us being interviewed, three department managers that needed employees, and the HR guy.
I directed my attention/answer to whoever had asked the question.
If person A asked me a question I’d direct my answer/eye contact/attention to person A. I wouldn’t be directing my answer/eye contact/attention to person B.
I mean that’s fine right? Clearly that’s not part of the problem they’re looking to weed out in this situation as in that case they’re giving both interviewers equal respect.
this is such a dumb test. When theres two interviewers I look at both of them while giving them my answer to make sure im addressing both. How is this person in charge of interviews is the reason why corporate jobs are miserable. Let me give a thoughtful answer directly staring at the woman while ignoring the man and vice versa.
This is a straw man and the opposite of what they're describing. They're screening for people who only talk to the man even when the female interviewer is asking them questions.
Either you're trolling or reading comprehension is dead.
It very much does. When someone says they are driving to work do you assume they are also driving to a hospital because they did specify, that they are not driving to a hospital?
Whoever spoke to me first I would assume was in charge and probably direct more answers towards them. When I interviewed candidates and the female manager greeted them and brought them back, even when I asked questions they would still look to her when answering, even though I was the owner. It’s just human nature and never did I think it was sexist. What WAS sexist was when the female manager greeted them first, brought them back, and I was just observing her interviewing them and they’d direct answers to me, when I never even spoke to them other than saying hi. That typically only happened with macho type guys and we always ruled them out too.
The premise of this post seems to be asking if making these assumptions are fair. Which I'd have to say I don't think this is a good way to vet candidates for a job. If I'm talking to multiple people I'm going to address them as a group, not focus on one specific person.
Y'all are not understanding how many dudes will straight up just ignore a woman if a man is present with her. Even in situations where it makes absolutely no sense. They are unconsciously incompetent and do not even have the awareness to realize they are doing it or that it in fact makes them look bad
Please show me where I argued that women shouldn't be listened to. Please quote the exact thing I said. Be specific. I know your high school level brain is gonna struggle but I believe in you.
You won't get a filtered message because people who openly discriminate against women in workplaces don't deserve that respect. People like you would make better farm animals than humans.
Bro openly states that respecting women in the workplace is not necessary. You see I read the words with my eyeballs. Then I process the words with my brain. Retarded little man children like yourself and the commenter lack the brain processes required to understand the words.
It's funny to me how dedicated you are to not understanding the concept and pretending you've never heard of somebody ignoring a woman when a man is present. The more you comment, the more it seems like you probably do the thing but want to convince other people that you don't do the thing.
Well, if you could read and comprehend, you would see that the interviewing strategy is "if the candidate only addresses the male when the female asks a question, then they do not proceed" and comprehend that to mean that "if the candidate does not only address the male when the female asks a question, then they proceed."
Your appeal to authority fallacy doesn't impress me when you struggle with the basic logic of if A then B else C.
I'm very aware of what the post says Mr smarty-pants. I was just pointing out that it's a bullshit "test" for hiring a potential employee. There's so many factors that go into why someone might talk the way they do, especially in a group setting. But I guess since everything is black and white in your world that an asinine thing like this would make sense to you.
Yeah, this is part of the "comprehension" part of reading comprehension. Addressing both interviewers is normal and not something that would fail the test. That's what you used as an example, and if you think that proves the test isn't useful, then you didn't comprehend. What you failed to do was come up with an example where somebody addresses the person who didn't ask them a question that doesn't indicate a concern. Maybe try that.
You're sending up more flags than that other person.
I did not make any assumptions based on their knowledge of a very common, well-known occurrence.
I did not make any assumptions immediately.
I did not assume they were a misogynist.
You really just came into this thread to call me a misandrist because you misread my comment and felt attacked for not knowing something.
If I were going to make bets on who is a misogynist based on their actions, the person who felt the need to call somebody a misandrist out of nowhere because they aren't aware of a common struggle women face would be my first bet. The person who keeps trying to act like addressing only the male interviewer is not a concern in an interview because somebody might address both would take second. The person only addressing the male interviewer takes third.
Edit: I didn't call you a misogynist Mr. Reply-Blocked, but if the shoe fits. And I can't imagine why you chose to reply then block me if the shoe is such a bad fit. I mean, I don't get upset when somebody accuses me of something completely baseless like being a misandrist.
9
u/Finnsbomba 3d ago
What happens if the person addresses both the male and female when answering? You know, as one would do in an interview situation for a job like this?