Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Not if the woman is better qualified though.
    My point is that she'd have to be a lot better qualified, and probably have experience of working in a similar situation (and have dealt well with it). However it seems unlikely that she was, and given the time constraints they were working under, it seem much more time efficient to ignore her.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    Surely they should still look at the other aspects of her application though? If she is head and shoulders ahead of the other candidates in other areas, it might still overall be better to hire her - particularly if she has strong leadership qualities that might help her overcome her workers' prejudice.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    THIS. especially since 2 assessors were female, and also you backing down. only problem - maybe they wanted someone who would not back down if they were convinced they were right. but i think you did the right thing overall.
    Um... if your in a group of six, and your the only one arguing against an idea or motion, and you cant convince the group your right, then being pig headed and going round in circles is not going to impress the potential employers. They want someone who can work in teams, not who is disruptive. It doesnt matter how convinced you are your right, your working in a team and its a team decision. If 5 out of 6 dont agree with you then your best to take the company line and go along with it. What would have been even more impressive would have been if you argue for what your team believes even if you dont believe it yourself.


    Anyway, I agree with Fox the Fix. The manager has to work for the staff, if the staff are going to hate her from the start, or specifically want a local manager, then employing someone they arnt going to get along with would be a shocking idea.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Well some of your reasons explain some of the difference.

    But at least 10% of the wage gap cannot (yet) be explained.

    ps one of the profs at my uni talked about his research (informally) and some of it was wage inequality, in case you wonder where the figure comes from.
    I'm curious over this - since officially the wage gap between men and women in full-time jobs is 12.2% as of last year according to the government.

    Are you saying that the phenomena you quoted explain 2.2% or less of the gap?

    The gap only widens dramatically because far more women do part time jobs than men. For the case of a man and a woman in part-time employment, the woman is likely to earn 2% more than the man, probably due to being in part-time work longer-term.

    As for the interview - If I was judging you'd be the one I'd choose. What a candidate's genitals look like comes well down on my list of important criteria.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    sub'd because I want to know the outcome.

    Personally I'd say it's completely irrelevant whether employees like their manager or not. So who knows.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I was just thinking. Even if the staff don't like her, the economic crisis means they're still going to work hard, surely? Otherwise there are probably people queuing up to take their jobs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think they would want someone who would be so willing to hire based on gender and nationality. They probably mentioned traditional views, etc., to bait you. No company would employ based on gender or nationality, even in offices abroad where it may be legal. All it would take is for one of the many people in human resources who would know what's going on to talk and the company's reputation would be destroyed.

    Ruling out women was too obvious a method I think, seeing as they dangled that information in front of you. I reckon they wanted to see who was impressionable enough to just go the sexist route to try and please their assessors.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I was just thinking. Even if the staff don't like her, the economic crisis means they're still going to work hard, surely? Otherwise there are probably people queuing up to take their jobs.
    Can't fire a whole work force for not liking a manager realistically.

    It is a managers job to have a good relationship with their workforce you can't manage people who think your a ****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's important for a business, in the absence of any laws specifying gender/national equality, that the best qualified candidate for the job who isn't going to be potentially disruptive to the company is chosen.

    It sounds bad, but business is about managing risk, and employing a woman or a person of a different nationality as a manager in the workplace described is taking a big risk where the potential damage to morale etc. probably outweighs the benefits of that person being better qualified.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I don't think they would want someone who would be so willing to hire based on gender and nationality. They probably mentioned traditional views, etc., to bait you. No company would employ based on gender or nationality, even in offices abroad where it may be legal. All it would take is for one of the many people in human resources who would know what's going on to talk and the company's reputation would be destroyed.

    Ruling out women was too obvious a method I think, seeing as they dangled that information in front of you. I reckon they wanted to see who was impressionable enough to just go the sexist route to try and please their assessors.
    It's not sexist if your work force are not going to work to there maximum under a women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I don't think they would want someone who would be so willing to hire based on gender and nationality. They probably mentioned traditional views, etc., to bait you. No company would employ based on gender or nationality, even in offices abroad where it may be legal. All it would take is for one of the many people in human resources who would know what's going on to talk and the company's reputation would be destroyed.

    Ruling out women was too obvious a method I think, seeing as they dangled that information in front of you. I reckon they wanted to see who was impressionable enough to just go the sexist route to try and please their assessors.
    I think your right, there was something too satisfying about working out that she was a woman based on information we had about her university and then using other information and bringing it all together to come to a conclusion, kind of the feeling you get from completeing a sudoku. A lot of people would have thought "wonderfull i have broken the code"
    i am suprised though there seems to be a slight majority here in the view of equal rights, but at the AC is was 5:1 the other way, i was expecting to be in the minority here.

    Mainly i was worried about the backing down bit, at the end of the day, if the assesors think i was wrong about not wanting to disregard the woman straight out, its not the kind of company i want to work for...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Can't fire a whole work force for not liking a manager realistically.

    It is a managers job to have a good relationship with their workforce you can't manage people who think your a ****.
    No, I know you can't. I'm saying I think people would care about their jobs too much to slack off or whatever - and if not, a warning would probably do the trick. If that didn't work, fire someone as an example.

    Of course, I know **** all about business. But I'm pretty sure tons of people in the world hate their managers - they just care about their jobs too much to let it affect their work.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think you did the right thing and hope you're successful. I also think they invited you to discriminate and you didn't take the bait, argued your point, but then still came to a decision with the team.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I don't think they would want someone who would be so willing to hire based on gender and nationality. They probably mentioned traditional views, etc., to bait you. No company would employ based on gender or nationality, even in offices abroad where it may be legal. All it would take is for one of the many people in human resources who would know what's going on to talk and the company's reputation would be destroyed.

    Ruling out women was too obvious a method I think, seeing as they dangled that information in front of you. I reckon they wanted to see who was impressionable enough to just go the sexist route to try and please their assessors.
    I kind of think this too. It seems a bit too simple otherwise. A lot of businesses I've looked into applying to really stress how equality-driven they are.

    Then again, maybe I just WANT to believe this is the case. :p:
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    No, I know you can't. I'm saying I think people would care about their jobs too much to slack off or whatever - and if not, a warning would probably do the trick. If that didn't work, fire someone as an example.

    Of course, I know **** all about business. But I'm pretty sure tons of people in the world hate their managers - they just care about their jobs too much to let it affect their work.
    If its more of a cultural thing surely they are going to be happy talking about this, and happy to make their views well known. For them it might be the equivalent for you having a 16 year old put as your manager. You are not going to be happy and will not respect and so therefore follow their orders or be willing to contribute or negotiate with them. Which is something that if people do on mass would be hard to crack down on without warning everyone as you could then have strikes, disputes eg.. over the victimisation of certain workers.

    Unless you are willing to change a countries work views, you don't have much choice.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    It's not sexist if your work force are not going to work to there maximum under a women.
    Well it is. From an immediate financial point of view company's would rather employ men in offices in UK, as they're not going to get pregnant. But it's still sexist to employ a man over a woman based on gender, even if you're not going to get as many work hours for your money if you hire a woman.

    At the end of the day, the last thing the company wants is headlines in this country proclaiming that they've been excluding women because they're women. And all it would take for that to happen would be an anonymous tip from a jaded human resources employee to a newspaper. The damage of that is greater than the possible damage from the male workers not respecting the female manager.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the culture of the company. Most corporate cultures nowadays are mad keen on diversity and interculturalism I should think that they would probably take the view that the selection process should be meritocratic and the individual chosen should be give the appropriate training (such as intercultural awareness) to be effective in the job.

    Of course if that isn't the case then you've narrowly avoided working for a company that has an endemic culture of discrimination that is actively selected for so I'd say that's a good thing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    If its more of a cultural thing surely they are going to be happy talking about this, and happy to make their views well known. For them it might be the equivalent for you having a 16 year old put as your manager. You are not going to be happy and will not respect and so therefore follow their orders or be willing to contribute or negotiate with them. Which is something that if people do on mass would be hard to crack down on without warning everyone as you could then have strikes, disputes eg.. over the victimisation of certain workers.

    Unless you are willing to change a countries work views, you don't have much choice.
    I would respect, listen to and negotiate with any manager of mine, even if I didn't like him. Even if I thought he was an incompetent buffoon who should be fired, or he was sixteen, I would still listen and do what he said, out of necessity if for no other reason. I guess maybe it's hard for me to relate to a feeling that a certain "type" of person (a specific gender/nationality) is below me, because I've never felt that? I especially can't imagine feeling that to the extent that I would risk my livelihood.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Well it is. From an immediate financial point of view company's would rather employ men in offices in UK, as they're not going to get pregnant. But it's still sexist to employ a man over a woman based on gender, even if you're not going to get as many work hours for your money if you hire a woman.

    At the end of the day, the last thing the company wants is headlines in this country proclaiming that they've been excluding women because they're women. And all it would take for that to happen would be an anonymous tip from a jaded human resources employee to a newspaper. The damage of that is greater than the possible damage from the male workers not respecting the female manager.
    So your saying that someone with a lower class degree who you could argue would get less working hours should not be discriminated against?

    I think someone would have a very hard time proving a decision was made purely based on that, because it wouldn't in the first place. You obviously would not hire a male with a poor background and would only hire someone capable of the job.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callipygian)
    I think your right, there was something too satisfying about working out that she was a woman based on information we had about her university and then using other information and bringing it all together to come to a conclusion, kind of the feeling you get from completeing a sudoku. A lot of people would have thought "wonderfull i have broken the code"
    i am suprised though there seems to be a slight majority here in the view of equal rights, but at the AC is was 5:1 the other way, i was expecting to be in the minority here.

    Mainly i was worried about the backing down bit, at the end of the day, if the assesors think i was wrong about not wanting to disregard the woman straight out, its not the kind of company i want to work for...
    Yeah I think it was a trap. They're not going to want to be sending feedback to everyone they don't hire saying "sorry, you weren't sexist enough". Image is important to a company and they don't want to be sending out a message that they would so easily drop their ethics for financial reward. Nor do they want new recruits who would so easily drop the ethics that the company needs to appear to have.


    (Every time I say 'the company' it sounds in my head like you're applying to join the evil world dominating corporation in Prison Break.)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles and guides:

Hands typing

Degrees without fees

Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

A-Z of careers Advice on choosing a careerCV writing helpCovering letter helpInterview tips

Featured recruiter profiles:

CGI logo

CGI is open for applications

"Offering a range of apprentice and sponsored degree positions."

Deutsche Bank logo

Deutsche Bank is recruiting

"Thrive in an international banking environment"

ICAEW logo

Merck

"Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

Army logo

The Army is recruiting now

"With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

Handle your digital footprint

What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

Quick links:

Unanswered career sector and employment threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.