A recent survey on hiring practices led by hiring software company Greenhouse found “pretty sobering stats” about discrimination in hiring processes.
A recent survey on hiring practices led by hiring software company Greenhouse found “pretty sobering stats” about discrimination in hiring processes.
I think you missed the point. Women often change their names professionally to get attention that they wouldn’t have gotten had they presented a more feminine name. I’ve known multiple Christinas who went by Chris for this reason.
OP is saying that doing this is a double edged sword, because if it works as intended, you’re working for a person who would have otherwise discriminated against you.
That’s just it, I’d almost want some discrimination, because it’ll weed out the idiots that I was otherwise about to subject myself to.
Problem is, discrimination is so widespread, that this severely limits the opportunities of many (and is very often an opportunity cost for you). We all have latent discrimination within us, no matter how hard we try to counteract it. Most don’t try to counteract it either, for example there are things that I am subconsciously discriminatory against that I’m not even really self aware about.
That’s why I like the idea of having to scrub resume data before being presented. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been uncertain about someone, quite frankly because of some sort of latent discriminatory thing, and been surprised. Like at this point if I have a red flag about someone, I almost want to act contra and immediately hire them vs someone where I’m like this person is perfect and I inevitably get let down. Hiring people sucks, it’s literally the worst thing to have to subject yourself to, for both the candidate and the employer. Why not just knock down some barriers and try to make that easier on us all, right?
Oh! Yeah, I didn’t get that. Thanks