9 Comments

  • Im gonna hire this boring guy over this moderatly atractive to verry atractive female applicant said no recruiter ever.

  • wut

    >”We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.”

    >The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

    >Adding a woman’s name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.

  • Why don’t these people just be honest and admit that they don’t want employers to hire people based on merit. Instead being female or a minority is more important than actual work experience or ability to them.

  • From the studys summary ([Study as PDF](https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/BETA-report-going-blind-to-see-more%20clearly.pdf)):

    >We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority
    candidates:

    >- Participants were 2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants
    when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified.
    – Minority males were 5.8% more likely to be shortlisted and minority females were 8.6% more likely to be
    shortlisted when identifiable compared to when applications were de-identified.
    – The positive discrimination was strongest for Indigenous female candidates who were 22.2% more likely to be
    shortlisted when identifiable compared to when the applications were de-identified.

    >Interestingly, male reviewers displayed markedly more positive discrimination in favour of minority candidates than
    did female counterparts, and reviewers aged 40+ displayed much stronger affirmative action in favour for both
    women and minorities than did younger ones.
    Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the
    Australian Public Service, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.

  • “They keep picking the most qualified people! That’s not how this is supposed to work!”

  • I love that they blame women not being in senior roles on sexism whilst also stating you’re more likely to be employed with a female name.

    Everywhere I’ve worked women remain in lower roles generally because they have a family. They have no desire to move up and take on what they see as unnecessary stress because they need to balance their career with their home life. Most women that have children will prioritise them, that is natural and nothing is going to change that. A lot of companies that offer internal promotions accommodate this and offer yearly salary increases for those that don’t wish to offer themselves for promotion.

  • People should be hired based on merits, not what gender they are.

  • “Men continue to outnumber women at senior ranks of the public service, despite vastly outnumbering men at the rank-and-file level.”

    …What?

  • I think there needs to be some sort of recruitment drive; you see a lot of them in the STEM fields, but none here. There’s no point doing this sort of thing if not many women are applying in the first place.

Leave Your Comment