Hey Jeff, many thanks for reading and for your comment. That’s very interesting and it’s the first time I’m hearing about this. Do you know which orgs?
I do, but none of them have been willing to talk about it publicly. Maybe because it would imply that their hiring bar for employees that would increase their overall diversity is intentionally slightly lower?
That makes sense, thanks. I wonder if the results they got were also influenced by some other practices, for example already looking in a place where there was less diversity, or advertising the job in a way that put a lot of more diverse candidates off, such as not including salary in the JD.
Switching to blind hiring reducing the diversity of your hiring indicates that you’ve likely been (consciously or unconsciously) counting underrepresented group membership towards candidates instead of against them.
Hey Jeff, many thanks for reading and for your comment. That’s very interesting and it’s the first time I’m hearing about this. Do you know which orgs?
Here’s a relevant thread by Kelsey Piper.
I do, but none of them have been willing to talk about it publicly. Maybe because it would imply that their hiring bar for employees that would increase their overall diversity is intentionally slightly lower?
That makes sense, thanks. I wonder if the results they got were also influenced by some other practices, for example already looking in a place where there was less diversity, or advertising the job in a way that put a lot of more diverse candidates off, such as not including salary in the JD.
Why would you expect this?
Switching to blind hiring reducing the diversity of your hiring indicates that you’ve likely been (consciously or unconsciously) counting underrepresented group membership towards candidates instead of against them.