,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Have seen job-seekers get cut this way and 100% endorse it as an easy interview technique that should be widespread. 
“But if it becomes widespread or standard won’t people know to watch out for it?” Yes! It would benefit anyone who struggles with basic skills like “responding to a woman” to grow more conscious of their bias, with strong incentives to practice different habits and improve.
To be clear: this kind of thing has been getting red flags for years all over the place, without being an “official technique.” And that will surely continue. But since my quote of someone else’s post has blown up, I want to make a few notes & caveats. ↓
First of all, flagging a gendered disparity in communication isn’t the same thing as judging how much an interviewee maintains eye contact, is talkative, “personable,” etc. Those qualities vary with someone’s culture, extraversion and neurotypicality. Judging them risks bias. ↓
However, I’ve worked with all sorts of people—across lines of culture, background, personality, neurotypicality, etc.—who are more than capable of interacting similarly with people of different genders. Not doing so isn’t just a “sign,” it’s an active harm. In the interview! ↓
Consider that an interviewee who does this has just undermined a woman at her place of work, in front of one or more male peers. This could be a longer-lasting harm than if you gave her a paper cut on the wrist and she bled everywhere! Either way: interview torpedoed. ↓
Another thing: nearly all job interviews are dehumanizing, artificially compressed/abstracted, alienating processes... in part because most labor in our societies is exploitative. So “interviewing better” is a matter of harm reduction for interviewee AND potential coworkers. ↓
“How can you expect people to improve if they simply get a job rejection?” I would be shocked if job interviews started producing decent feedback for interviewees. Which is why my second tweet suggested this should become common knowledge, an “interview tip” anyone can Google. ↓
“How do you know they’re really biased from that?” I don’t at all! I wouldn’t claim you can measure someone’s attitudes from an event like this. It’s just a social skill necessary in most workplaces: communicating appropriately & respectfully with people of different genders. ↓
“But what if it was just a mistaken glance or accident?” Job interviews are terrible. If you make a mistake & call the interviewer “Mr. Shithead” instead of “Mr. Whithead” you also may lose the job? In many cases this may also be a red flag, not a disqualified. Make up for it. ↓
Or, if you really don’t have a pattern of biased behavior in talking to people of different genders, at least it’s not likely to happen twice, right? But if you are nervous or gaze-avoidant in general, this should not apply to you: it’s about disparity. ↓
“I can’t talk to women for reasons of religion or cultural upbringing!” Fortunately, in my experience this tends to vary even among people of similar upbringing. But if you can’t talk to women, then you (and the USA’s VP) probably shouldn’t be allowed to work with women. ↓
Last point: people have noted that this is hard to accomplish when there are one or zero women in a department to help with hiring. Hell yeah it is. You have to dig your way out of that problem to keep it from getting worse. ↓
Having been labeled a multiple-minority for decades, I have been tagged into countless committees for these reasons. But hiring committees are special: if they’re more diverse they tend to hire more equitably. So I tend to prioritize them.
Anyway, pretty noteworthy today to see how many excuses there are for "I should be able to insult and undermine one of the people interviewing me and still get the job" (whether accidental or not)
