Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sexist job interview - Did I do the right thing? watch

Announcements
    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...
    I wouldn't worry about the backing down. You voiced your objections and were overruled, if you'd continued to argue it probably would have been seen as more disruptive.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    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.
    Neither can I too be fair.

    I think its safety in numbers, this would not be a few staff annoyed this would be them all. In that situation they arguably has as much power as the firm.

    If you lose all your works overnight you lose productivity, need to hire new workers and then train them to the standard expected, who then might have the same problem.

    You try set an example and they argue your discriminating against those workers.

    You ignore it and have less productivity.

    I don't see what usefulness comes from it, if you take a harsh line.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    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.
    I'm not saying that. It is perfectly acceptable in UK society for a company to portray an image of 'we only hire the best', even 'we only hire from Oxbridge'. Indeed many companies specify which universities you must have a degree from, and what standard of a degree.

    You would have a hard time proving it, but if you encourage your recruiters to employ overseas based on gender, then someday one of them will talk to a newspaper, either because they get jaded or they get sacked and feel spiteful or whatever. No company would ever risk instructing or encouraging a recruiter to do such a thing for fear of the negative publicity. So they are certainly not going to be telling a load of applicants, most of whom are unsuccessful, that the right choice was to choose the man because the locals will respect him more. It's too much of a PR risk.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I'm not saying that. It is perfectly acceptable in UK society for a company to portray an image of 'we only hire the best', even 'we only hire from Oxbridge'. Indeed many companies specify which universities you must have a degree from, and what standard of a degree.

    You would have a hard time proving it, but if you encourage your recruiters to employ overseas based on gender, then someday one of them will talk to a newspaper, either because they get jaded or they get sacked and feel spiteful or whatever. No company would ever risk instructing or encouraging a recruiter to do such a thing for fear of the negative publicity. So they are certainly not going to be telling a load of applicants, most of whom are unsuccessful, that the right choice was to choose the man because the locals will respect him more. It's too much of a PR risk.
    Hiring one person for a position, I think it would be the other side needing to argue. There is a 50/50 chance it will be either sex. If you had 10 positions and 10 were male it would be a different story.

    You obviously don't tell the person that, if you think feedback to applicants is 100% the truth, it's not. As I said if it was an amazing candidate then you would re-consider it, but if two were similarly matched I would pick the male for ease of integration.

    Depends on the company your working for too and there culture.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    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:
    Yeah exactly. They would much rather be sending feedback telling people that it is important for the company to maintain an image of equal opportunities, rather than sending feedback telling people that they didn't abandon UK ethics quickly enough when hiring abroad.

    It tells them nothing if a group of people can work out which applicants are female, and remember that the one piece of information they were given was that the country is a bit backward. They're not going to be teaching applicants to sneakily work out people's genders and nationalities and use it against them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Hiring one person for a position, I think it would be the other side needing to argue. There is a 50/50 chance it will be either sex. If you had 10 positions and 10 were male it would be a different story.

    You obviously don't tell the person that, if you think feedback to applicants is 100% the truth, it's not. As I said if it was an amazing candidate then you would re-consider it, but if two were similarly matched I would pick the male for ease of integration.

    Depends on the company your working for too and there culture.
    thats the thing, this one applicant was the only applicant we knew the gender for, for all we knew they were all female. I raised this but my group members said "well we have to eliminate people somehow"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fox_the_fix)
    - One of the tasks was to decide on a correct candidate for a manager position of a factory in eastern europe.

    - they told us was that the locals had traditional views towards women

    - information sheets said that the factory workers would probably prefer a local manager, because the economy was bad and they wouldnt want jobs being given away to foriegners


    You was asked to find a perosn who fitted the above^.
    You failed catastrophically when you failed to realize that there is no need for politics within the equation. You just needed to find a person meeting the demands of XYZ, and instead you tried to justify why ABC is just as good as XYZ.

    So no you did the 'wrong' thing by not following the brief and being pedantic.
    Whether or not their opinions is archaic, wrong and naive is irrelevant. You just failed to distinguish between the relevant/irrelevant which is extremely bad in business because you need to be decisive, cut throat and follow instructions to a T, not argue about the politics behind them.
    This is the first post of yours I've ever actualy agreed with.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Callipygian)
    thats the thing, this one applicant was the only applicant we knew the gender for, for all we knew they were all female. I raised this but my group members said "well we have to eliminate people somehow"
    Ah yeah I forgot about that, I don't think either side would be judged against providing they gave there point in a logical and approachable way.

    I think backing down will go in your favor as it shows time management, ability to take initiative and ability to accept others views. When your outnumbered you can have the best idea in the world but if you go against the team the final outcome is compromised.

    You will just have to wait and see, good luck!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fox_the_fix)
    - One of the tasks was to decide on a correct candidate for a manager position of a factory in eastern europe.

    - they told us was that the locals had traditional views towards women

    - information sheets said that the factory workers would probably prefer a local manager, because the economy was bad and they wouldnt want jobs being given away to foriegners


    You was asked to find a perosn who fitted the above^.
    You failed catastrophically when you failed to realize that there is no need for politics within the equation. You just needed to find a person meeting the demands of XYZ, and instead you tried to justify why ABC is just as good as XYZ.

    So no you did the 'wrong' thing by not following the brief and being pedantic.
    Whether or not their opinions is archaic, wrong and naive is irrelevant. You just failed to distinguish between the relevant/irrelevant which is extremely bad in business because you need to be decisive, cut throat and follow instructions to a T, not argue about the politics behind them.
    Whats worse, a few disgruntled workers, or a serious discrimination case costing the business thousands in legal fees? The candidate in this case was able to see further than the blindingly obvious, and actually assess the reality of the situation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    except I do wonder why it is that women often have it easier getting jobs (as said companies are worried so like have a black quote or women quota, etc) but still get paid less.
    Positive discrimination/affirmative action is completely illegal in this country. Do you have proof that any company, anywhere in this country, has a black or female quota?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting question. I'd agree with the general consensus that these issues were red herrings put in to show how much you buy into all that diversity stuff. You weren't necessarily being asked to choose the best person for the job, but the correct person - given the law and the policies that the company presumably has against such discrimination.

    Even then though, you probably didn't do to well. By the sounds of it, you made an objection and failed to persuade anyone, then backed down. In terms of team work, assertiveness and negotiation - which was probably at the heart of the task - you don't seem to have performed very well.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Interesting question. I'd agree with the general consensus that these issues were red herrings put in to show how much you buy into all that diversity stuff. You weren't necessarily being asked to choose the best person for the job, but the correct person - given the law and the policies that the company presumably has against such discrimination.

    Even then though, you probably didn't do to well. By the sounds of it, you made an objection and failed to persuade anyone, then backed down. In terms of team work, assertiveness and negotiation - which was probably at the heart of the task - you don't seem to have performed very well.
    What should she have done though? Given she made a point that everyone disagreed with, and couldn't convince them (which isn't necessarily her fault), should she have kept arguing? Surely that would have been extremely counter-productive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If being a man will help a candidate manage the workforce, it should be considered as a "qualification" just like any other characteristic of a person that makes them suitable for a task. How valuable that "qualification" is is down to your judgement.

    But you did the right thing, I think. I don't see why your attitude to discrimination, morality and the law should pose a problem for the company if you were willing to be pragmatic despite your objections.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Positive discrimination/affirmative action is completely illegal in this country. Do you have proof that any company, anywhere in this country, has a black or female quota?
    It's not completely illegal. If you have two candidates with the same qualifications, you are allowed to choose the woman based on her gender, but not the other way round.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callipygian)
    So I had an assesment centre today for a big tech company for a "business" intern poisiton.

    One of the tasks was to decide on a correct candidate for a manager position of a factory in eastern europe.

    We were given sheets of information about university courses, and the area, one of the things they told us was that the locals had traditional views towards women, this was mentioned twice.

    There was LOTS of information, another bit was about a university that was purely for women. the rest of my group wanted to disgregard an applicant because the university she went to meant they could work out that she was a woman (we wernt given genders for anoyone else), i argued against this but in the end we were getting stuck in a rut and it was just 5 people taking it in turns to explain why i was wrong, so i decided to back down, i didnt want to seem too arguementative and didnt want to slow things down, we were running out of time.

    They also did the same thing for another applicant, who had put down their nationality, nobody else had, but they wanted to reject them because they wernt local. The candidate was italen and the information sheets said that the factory workers would probably prefer a local manager, because the economy was bad and they wouldnt want jobs being given away to foriegners.
    The same thing happened with this, everyone else told me i was wrong and we were getting in a rut so i backed down as we didnt have much time remaining.

    This was all watched by 3 assesors, 2 female and 1 male if that makes any difference.

    did i do the right thing?
    how much will this affect my chances of being chosen.
    Congrats, I bet you got it!
    Even if the assessors were not thinking about the sexism before, you wouldn't be downgraded for opposing the sexist candidates. I bet you will do quite fine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    It's not completely illegal. If you have two candidates with the same qualifications, you are allowed to choose the woman based on her gender, but not the other way round.
    No you aren't!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To answer your question: you failed. But you didn't fail as bad as the other candidates. I am certain that the correct answer in that situation would have been to oppose discriminating because of the sex/nationality, and go on to say that it's not just for moral reasons you are opposing it but because it is illegal to discriminate based on sex/nationality, and that if anyone ever found out it would cause a shtstorm. Balloons of paint thrown by rabid feminists at the doors of your headquarters. Massive fines. Angry articles in all the liberal newspapers. Massive drop in women applying to work at your company. If the factory was producing a product consumed by women (who are the biggest consumers generally) then sales will go down as people will boycott your product. Remind them that it would be quite easy for such a scenario t happen, as the woman or the wrong nationality guy could turn around and claim dsicrimination, and if you don't have a solid reason for rejecting them then...

    Even in the face of 5 people opposing you you should have stuck to your guns and emphasized that the reasons were for the good of the company.

    You didn't stick to your guns, and it doesn't sound like you gave them a valid reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    No you aren't!
    Unless you're putting together a shortlist of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates...
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    To answer your question: you failed. But you didn't fail as bad as the other candidates. I am certain that the correct answer in that situation would have been to oppose discriminating because of the sex/nationality, and go on to say that it's not just for moral reasons you are opposing it but because it is illegal to discriminate based on sex/nationality, and that if anyone ever found out it would cause a shtstorm. Balloons of paint thrown by rabid feminists at the doors of your headquarters. Massive fines. Angry articles in all the liberal newspapers. Massive drop in women applying to work at your company. If the factory was producing a product consumed by women (who are the biggest consumers generally) then sales will go down as people will boycott your product. Remind them that it would be quite easy for such a scenario t happen, as the woman or the wrong nationality guy could turn around and claim dsicrimination, and if you don't have a solid reason for rejecting them then...

    Even in the face of 5 people opposing you you should have stuck to your guns and emphasized that the reasons were for the good of the company.

    You didn't stick to your guns, and it doesn't sound like you gave them a valid reason.
    Not illegal in the country of the factory.

    And no one will find out one person has been fired because of it, thats way over the top.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconzey)
    Unless you're putting together a shortlist of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates...
    Hmm. Well, I think it is wrong to be allowed to do that but at least it's only for parliament positions.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 28, 2010
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.