Female Hiring Targets

the-island-man

Something that has interested me in the last while is internal memo's from companies of all sizes in Ireland about targets they have put in place to hire X percentage of female employees. Both at a general level and into senior positions. I wanted to see if other people have the same opinion as myself.

I'm obviously male but I don't consider myself sexist. I have a wife and a daughter so I don't want to see females discriminated against and while I am not an expert there does seem to be an issue in females getting hired, promoted and being paid properly. However this approach of setting targets seems to be a lazy approach to fixing the problem and also just seems to amount to openly discriminating against men. At the macro level it will no doubt achieve the aim of leveling the playing field but at an individual role level it will surely result in discrimination against men and the successful candidate will not always be the best person for the role.

Triangle

the-island-man wrote: »

Something that has interested me in the last while is press releases from companies of all sizes in Ireland about targets they have put in place to hire X percentage of female employees. Both at a general level and into senior positions. I wanted to see if other people have the same opinion as myself.

I'm obviously male but I don't consider myself sexist. I have a wife and a daughter so I don't want to see females discriminated against and while I am not an expert there does seem to be an issue in females getting hired, promoted and being paid properly. However this approach of setting quotas seems to be a lazy approach to fixing the problem and also just seems to amount to openly discriminating against men. At the macro level it will no doubt achieve the aim of leveling the playing field but at an individual role level it will surely result in discrimination against men and the successful candidate will not always be the best person for the role.

100%, I read recently someone was proposing to have a female only TD seat. Absolute antidemocratic sentiment I've heard in a good bit.
Seemingly sexism can only go one way. It's positive discrimination the other way.

tranquilo

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

landofthetree

How would it work if I started up a civil engineering consultants?

If only 10% of civil engineer graduates are women I cant hire 50:50.

wench

landofthetree wrote: »

How would it work if I started up a civil engineering consultants?

If only 10% of civil engineer graduates are women I cant hire 50:50.

Of course you can, unless you are proposing to hire so many that you would exhaust the pool before reaching 50:50

km991148

tranquilo wrote: »

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

And if that had been traditionally been the case, then I'm sure there would be no need for "controversial" policies like positive discrimination (which I don't like myself, but I can understand its need).

Its not like there are jobs for people based on their gender/race/whatever on its own - i.e. they will have to actually be good at what they do.

km991148

landofthetree wrote: »

How would it work if I started up a civil engineering consultants?

If only 10% of civil engineer graduates are women I cant hire 50:50.

You could still aim for balance, but initially you would not achieve it, however over time you may see a higher number of graduates as they will come to realise that the industry isn't closed off to the idea of women working in it.



This sorta stuff is only as hard as people choose to make it.

Francie Barrett

landofthetree wrote: »

How would it work if I started up a civil engineering consultants?

If only 10% of civil engineer graduates are women I cant hire 50:50.

Imagine if you had the same reverse discrimination against nurses?

Wheety

Job shortlisting should only be based on CV with no personal info at all. Then for interview have it like those witnesses to an event on tv shows. Just a dark silhouette and a deep robot voice.

seamus

tranquilo wrote: »

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

But at the same time when you have very unbalanced splits in companies along the lines of gender, race, etc, then there's quite probably an issue where the best candidate is NOT being selected for the job.

Gender quotas are kind of a blunt instrument; they force a rebalance within in the organisation, which then in theory should continue after you drop any notion of quotas.

The longer but more appropriate way to do it is to make gender quotas a target rather than something forced. So if an org aims for at least 40% women, but they're only at 25%, then they need to start digging to find out why.

If only 25% of applicants are women, then they need to focus on their hiring strategy to bring that up.
If 50% of applicants are women but 75% of new hires are men, then there's likely a systemic bias in their hiring process, and they need to reasses how hires are ranked and selected.

This applies throughout the org, not just at the new entry level. If 60% of your workers are male, but 90% of your management team is male, then you need to find out what barriers are causing this. Is it a matter of workload, is it a systemic bias, etc.

Quotas as a performance target are a good thing. As a selection method for candidates; blunt and unlikely to get good results.

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

Something that has interested me in the last while is press releases from companies of all sizes in Ireland about targets they have put in place to hire X percentage of female employees. Both at a general level and into senior positions. I wanted to see if other people have the same opinion as myself.

I'm obviously male but I don't consider myself sexist. I have a wife and a daughter so I don't want to see females discriminated against and while I am not an expert there does seem to be an issue in females getting hired, promoted and being paid properly. However this approach of setting quotas seems to be a lazy approach to fixing the problem and also just seems to amount to openly discriminating against men. At the macro level it will no doubt achieve the aim of leveling the playing field but at an individual role level it will surely result in discrimination against men and the successful candidate will not always be the best person for the role.

It might help have a sensible discussion if you point to which specific measures by which specific companies have concerned you. Otherwise, there is a serious danger that you're creating a big bogeyman (bogeywoman) scenario to scare people off something that is actually happening.

Most positive action measures are a lot more nuanced that your post suggests.

tranquilo wrote: »

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

Have you any thoughts on why most senior jobs in most professions, in the Dail, in the Army and Gardai are held by men?

Triangle wrote: »

100%, I read recently someone was proposing to have a female only TD seat. Absolute antidemocratic sentiment I've heard in a good bit.
Seemingly sexism can only go one way. It's positive discrimination the other way.

Who suggested this female only TD seat?

Positive action measures (which are clearly defined in equality law) can absolutely go both ways.

https://employmentrightsireland.com/equality-and-discrimination-in-the-workplace-in-ireland-an-overview/

AndrewJRenko

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Imagine if you had the same reverse discrimination against nurses?

Like this, you mean?
https://www.coventry.ac.uk/primary-news/university-tackles-nursing-gender-gap-with-first-bursary-for-men/

km991148

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Imagine if you had the same reverse discrimination against nurses?

Like there are similar programmes to get more men into nursing? and primary school teaching and a whole lot of other jobs..

So you don't really need to imagine!

EDIT: written at the same time as AJR..

heres some more info / examples
https://www.nursingtimes.net/opinion/recognising-the-gender-gap-getting-more-men-into-nursing-19-06-2020/

tranquilo

tranquilo wrote: »

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

The issue this is addressing is unconscious bias. So, if you have 2 people, one male, one female, who are both perfect candidates and you are below quota, then you hire the female.

What this is not aimed to do is hire less suitable people for roles.

Only a moron would think this would lead to that.

Dodge

tranquilo wrote: »

The best and most qualified person for the job should be hired. Gender should have nothing to do with it, the same way race, religion, etc. should have nothing to do with it

For most jobs there is no ‘best person for the job’. There’s loads of people who could do the job and do it well. It’s folly to suggest that looking at a persons CV and interviewing them that you’ll be able to pick the best person for the job every time. You might just have picked the person who beat presented their case etc etc

And if you really are the ‘best’ person doing a job, you’ll have nothing to worry about from others going for the similar jobs

the-island-man

the-island-man wrote: »

Something that has interested me in the last while is press releases from companies of all sizes in Ireland about targets they have put in place to hire X percentage of female employees. Both at a general level and into senior positions. I wanted to see if other people have the same opinion as myself.

I've never seen anything of the sort, at least not officially and in writing......any company which advertised as "men/women only" would be hauled through the court system and their name muddied beyond belief, it would literally be all over the news and social media.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never seen anything of the sort, at least not officially and in writing......any company which advertised as "men/women only" would be hauled through the court system and their name muddied beyond belief, it would literally be all over the news and social media.

There's no need. Misandry can be cloaked in 'targets', or 'welcoming' certain applicants.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

But at the same time when you have very unbalanced splits in companies along the lines of gender, race, etc, then there's quite probably an issue where the best candidate is NOT being selected for the job.

Gender quotas are kind of a blunt instrument; they force a rebalance within in the organisation, which then in theory should continue after you drop any notion of quotas.

The longer but more appropriate way to do it is to make gender quotas a target rather than something forced. So if an org aims for at least 40% women, but they're only at 25%, then they need to start digging to find out why.

If only 25% of applicants are women, then they need to focus on their hiring strategy to bring that up.
If 50% of applicants are women but 75% of new hires are men, then there's likely a systemic bias in their hiring process, and they need to reasses how hires are ranked and selected.

This applies throughout the org, not just at the new entry level. If 60% of your workers are male, but 90% of your management team is male, then you need to find out what barriers are causing this. Is it a matter of workload, is it a systemic bias, etc.

Quotas as a performance target are a good thing. As a selection method for candidates; blunt and unlikely to get good results.

You have made a lot of statements here as if they have become objective facts just simply by stating them.

What is the difference between a ''target'' and a quota, for a start - very little in effect, except one sounds perhaps less patronising.
Why would rebalancing continue after quotas are dropped like some sort of magical ripple effect?
What does one do to a hiring strategy to make it more gender accessible to target certain genders?


If 50% of applicants are women but 75% of new hires are men, then there's likely a systemic bias in their hiring process...

OR it might far more likely simply mean that the best candidates for the job were hired.

Hiring quotas are infantilising to women. Workload issues and personal choices freely made about work-life balance are far more likely to be behind uneven gender representation in demanding sectors of work than systemic bias.

Personally I know women working at the highest positions available in many sectors, including very technical, traditionally male fields such as engineering, law, architecture, scientific research, civil service - they tell me there were no barriers to getting where they are - just do the work, bring the results and the people they met along the way are co-operative, mature and professional.

the-island-man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It might help have a sensible discussion if you point to which specific measures by which specific companies have concerned you. Otherwise, there is a serious danger that you're creating a big bogeyman (bogeywoman) scenario to scare people off something that is actually happening.

Most positive action measures are a lot more nuanced that your post suggests.

I'm in I.T so that would be the sector I am focused on:
Facebook: https://www.ft.com/content/abf461ca-a25f-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1
Twitter: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/twitter-workforce-diversity-goals-will-help-bring-balance-to-platform.html

My current company which is an SME has set a target of 35% of the workforce to be female. I am also related to a person who works in a Multinational Financial Investments company. They told me that a women and a non-Caucasian person are the preferred interviewers as it shows the company as being diverse.

My genuinely held fear is it's a short jump for these "targets" to be inserted into performance goals for managers. As you'd expect most HR personnel know nothing about I.T so who's going to stop some lazy hiring manager from hiring a person not fit for the role just to meet their performance goals?!

Smee_Again

It's discrimination and shouldn't be needed but those arguing for hiring the best person fore the job are ignoring that this isn't what happens for various reasons (number 1 being there's not really a best person for the job) so I've no issue with it as a blunt instrument to balance things out.

landofthetree

wench wrote: »

Of course you can, unless you are proposing to hire so many that you would exhaust the pool before reaching 50:50

But that means only a small number of companies can have 50:50.

If there are 900 male engineers and 100 female engineers in the country and if 10 companies exist who all hire 100 people then how can every company have 50:50?

the-island-man

Smee_Again wrote: »

It's discrimination and shouldn't be needed but those arguing for hiring the best person fore the job are ignoring that this isn't what happens for various reasons (number 1 being there's not really a best person for the job) so I've no issue with it as a blunt instrument to balance things out.

I didn't ignore it. I highlighted it in my original post that I do believe there is an issue but that setting Quotas to fix it was a discriminatory approach.

Nermal

Smee_Again wrote: »

there's not really a best person for the job

Of course there is. Even when multiple candidates meet the requirements, it's always possible to rank them.

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

I'm in I.T so that would be the sector I am focused on:
Facebook: https://www.ft.com/content/abf461ca-a25f-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1
Twitter: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/twitter-workforce-diversity-goals-will-help-bring-balance-to-platform.html

My current company which is an SME has set a target of 35% of the workforce to be female. I am also related to a person who works in a Multinational Financial Investments company. They told me that a women and a non-Caucasian person are the preferred interviewers as it shows the company as being diverse.

My genuinely held fear is it's a short jump for these "targets" to be inserted into performance goals for managers. As you'd expect most HR personnel know nothing about I.T so who's going to stop some lazy hiring manager from hiring a person not fit for the role just to meet their performance goals?!

Both articles are from outside Ireland, and one is paywalled, so it's hard to draw any sensible conclusions there.

It's also hard to draw any sensible conclusions from the single point you quote about your own employer, of the 35% target. At a guess, this one figure is part of a much larger policy detailing clearly how they plan to achieve the target. It may well set out positive action measures to attract more female applications, measures to retain more female employees, measures for engaging with schools and colleges to encourage more female students. and will probably give a clear indication of how the target is planned to be achieved - which will probably address your superficial concern about hiring people not fit for the role.

The people who came up with this policy and the senior management who signed off on it have a fairly clear vested interest in not recruiting people who are not fit for their role. Think about it.

Have you looked for more details from your employer as to how they plan to implement this policy?

landofthetree

Smee_Again wrote: »

It's discrimination and shouldn't be needed but those arguing for hiring the best person fore the job are ignoring that this isn't what happens for various reasons (number 1 being there's not really a best person for the job) so I've no issue with it as a blunt instrument to balance things out.

Maybe in the public sector but in the private sector companies that dont hire the best will suffer the consequences.

Free market capitalism hates discrimination.

AndrewJRenko

landofthetree wrote: »

But that means only a small number of companies can have 50:50.

If there are 900 male engineers and 100 female engineers in the country and if 10 companies exist who all hire 100 people then how can every company have 50:50?

In this kind of scenario, you'll probably find that the strategy will include measures to increase the supply of female engineers over time.

AndrewJRenko

landofthetree wrote: »

Free market capitalism hates discrimination.

Free market capitalism is founded on discrimination.

the-island-man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Both articles are from outside Ireland, and one is paywalled, so it's hard to draw any sensible conclusions there.

They both have their European Headquarters in Dublin. You think there's something special about Ireland that they wouldn't apply it in the same way?!

It's also hard to draw any sensible conclusions from the single point you quote about your own employer, of the 35% target. At a guess, this one figure is part of a much larger policy detailing clearly how they plan to achieve the target. It may well set out positive action measures to attract more female applications, measures to retain more female employees, measures for engaging with schools and colleges to encourage more female students. and will probably give a clear indication of how the target is planned to be achieved - which will probably address your superficial concern about hiring people not fit for the role.

The people who came up with this policy and the senior management who signed off on it have a fairly clear vested interest in not recruiting people who are not fit for their role. Think about it.

Have you looked for more details from your employer as to how they plan to implement this policy?

No, I haven't requested more information but it's not just about my company. I believe this is a global trend.

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

They both have their European Headquarters in Dublin. You think there's something special about Ireland that they wouldn't apply it in the same way?!

Every country is special when it comes to employment law and the general HR environment, as these multi-national organisations well know - so they tailor their employment policies by country.

Again, if you can point to specific measures being implemented in Ireland, we can see how far they are away from the broad scary story you set out of the poor lads being discriminated against.

the-island-man wrote: »

No, I haven't requested more information but it's not just about my company. I believe this is a global trend.

Your own company would be a great opportunity to fully understand what is behind the global trend. Go behind the headline, understand the details of the policy, and then we can have a sensible discussion.

What happens if you go to an interview and they hire a woman anyway, as they need to fill certain quotas.

Surely you've a discrimination case?

Smee_Again

the-island-man wrote: »

I didn't ignore it. I highlighted it in my original post that I do believe there is an issue but that setting Quotas to fix it was a discriminatory approach.

And I agree, I just don't have an issue with it for now.

Nermal wrote: »

Of course there is. Even when multiple candidates meet the requirements, it's always possible to rank them.

And these rankings will be arbitrary and could easily change depending on who interviewed the candidates, what everyone had for breakfast that morning etc. Interviewing and hiring in general is a skill and some people are better at it than others but there's no way to take the human element out it.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

What happens if you go to an interview and they hire a woman anyway, as they need to fill certain quotas.

Surely you've a discrimination case?

Has any company proposed implementing measures that lead you to believe that there is a serious risk of female candidates being selected over better male candidates?

seamus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is the difference between a ''target'' and a quota, for a start

A quota is a hard limit, one which places an obligation to to reach a certain number or to not exceed another. It also implies either that it cannot be breached or that penalties exist for breaching it.

A target is a goal, which by definition can be missed.

Why would rebalancing continue after quotas are dropped like some sort of magical ripple effect?

Gender disparities tend to be down to systemic bias more than ability.

What does one do to a hiring strategy to make it more gender accessible to target certain genders?

For example, spending more of your hiring budget advertising towards women. Examining the nature of your employment offer to highlight or improve opportunities for women. Surveying women to find out what it is about your company that causes them to apply less, and then seeking to address that. If possible.

OR it might far more likely simply mean that the best candidates for the job were hired.

All other things being equal, and assuming you're not basing the stat on small numbers, then one gender being hired at a rate of 3:1 when applicants are 1:1, says that you have a bias problem. Otherwise you're asserting that men are just better at that job than women.

Personally I know women working at the highest positions available in many sectors, including very technical, traditionally male fields such as engineering, law, architecture, scientific research, civil service - they tell me there were no barriers to getting where they are

For all of these women that you conveniently know and have discussed workplace equality with, there is another woman with the exact opposite experience.

landofthetree

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Free market capitalism is founded on discrimination.

Not it's not.

The free market wants me to be allowed buy goods and services from the good people all over the world. But I cant. I'm limited to the EU and a handful of countries that we have free trade agreements with.

Tariffs discriminate against billions of people trying to make a better life for themselves.

wench

landofthetree wrote: »

But that means only a small number of companies can have 50:50.

If there are 900 male engineers and 100 female engineers in the country and if 10 companies exist who all hire 100 people then how can every company have 50:50?

It's nice you're concerned for your competitors, but let them figure out how to make their offering more attractive to women.

You can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having a workforce that more closely matches the people you're trying to design and build for.

landofthetree

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In this kind of scenario, you'll probably find that the strategy will include measures to increase the supply of female engineers over time.

Like in Sweden where it has resulted in less women in the STEM fields?

The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
A new study explores a strange paradox: In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553592/

Also are we going to have a strategy for professional that women dominate?

mailforkev

I’ll be hiring three people in the next few weeks for a couple of projects.
Will aim to have an even split of male and female candidates for interview, the recruitment teams will filter out the chaff for me either way.
However, the best candidates will get the jobs.
Personally I like having, and working in, a well balanced team.

landofthetree

wench wrote: »

It's nice you're concerned for your competitors, but let them figure out how to make their offering more attractive to women.

You can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having a workforce that more closely matches the people you're trying to design and build for.

That doesnt solve the issue. Every company cant do it and that's the point.

You can't bring in a law demanding 50:50 unless you have 50:50 entry to all professions at the start.

Dodge

No one is bringing in that law though so don’t worry about it

wench

landofthetree wrote: »

That doesnt solve the issue. Every company cant do it and that's the point.

You can't bring in a law demanding 50:50 unless you have 50:50 entry to all professions at the start.

And nobody has proposed such a law, as far as I'm aware.
Until we start breeding embryos for specific jobs, a la Brave New World, that would never be practical.


Having a target to improve your gender/equality/disability representation, and being unable to meet it will give more motivation to look at the factors skewing your industry so much one way, and hopefully address them in some systemic fashion.

AndrewJRenko

landofthetree wrote: »

Not it's not.

The free market wants me to be allowed buy goods and services from the good people all over the world. But I cant. I'm limited to the EU and a handful of countries that we have free trade agreements with.

Tariffs discriminate against billions of people trying to make a better life for themselves.

Allowing free trade with countries with inherently different safety, quality and employment legislation is inherently discriminatory.

But allowing people to trade is just one aspect of capitalism - the fundamental foundations of capitalism ensure that wealthy people make more money, and have more opportunities and easier opportunities to make more money.

Manach

It is unfortunate that history repeats itself as farce. Other states that have tried to implement quota polices to match political doctrines have found that the boomerang effect rebounds on them.

landofthetree

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Allowing free trade with countries with inherently different safety, quality and employment legislation is inherently discriminatory.

But allowing people to trade is just one aspect of capitalism - the fundamental foundations of capitalism ensure that wealthy people make more money, and have more opportunities and easier opportunities to make more money.

Free trade benefits the environments and poor workers. Capitalism leads to innovation and a reduction in pollution.



Capitalism has been the only system that has lifed billions out of poverty.

wench

landofthetree wrote: »

Free trade benefits the environments and poor workers. Capitalism leads to innovation and a reduction in pollution.



Capitalism has been the only system that has lifed billions out of poverty.

How does capitalism reduce pollution?
Treating your polluting by-products reduces profit, so why would you?

km991148

All this talk about capitalism leading to x or y..


Capitalism doesn't give a damn for innovation, pollution, equality or feck all. Left unchecked it will consume everything to feed itself.


Any time innovation has occurred it's only because it was also coincidentally profitable to do so. Plenty of times where there has been no innovation because there was no profit on it.

Francie Barrett

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Like this, you mean?
https://www.coventry.ac.uk/primary-news/university-tackles-nursing-gender-gap-with-first-bursary-for-men/

There is nothing in that article that suggests minimum male quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by women.

AndrewJRenko

Francie Barrett wrote: »

There is nothing in that article that suggests minimum male quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by women.

There is nothing in any of the rumours posted here that suggests that minimum female quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by men.

LegallyAbroad

An easy solution would to have 33% quotas for both genders for all jobs.

the-island-man

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

An easy solution would to have 33% quotas for both genders for all jobs.

Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!

AndrewJRenko

the-island-man wrote: »

Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!

It would be great if you could look at the actual details of some of these policies to better understand how they work before you stir up too many doubts and uncertainties.

the-island-man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be great if you could look at the actual details of some of these policies to better understand how they work before you stir up too many doubts and uncertainties.

It might be useful to know your background? Do you work in the public or private sector? Have you ever worked in an American Multinational?

You make it sound like I'm the bogeyman trying to whip up fear. I would like to retract part of my original post when I mentioned press releases being the way in which companies communicate this. It's more likely to be internal memo's. However I am based in the west of Ireland and the I.T sector is relatively small so I have kept in contact with a fair number of past colleagues and this idea of gender targets seems to be consistent.

Maybe let's flip this on it's head. If the means of achieving these targets were to just encourage more women to enter certain sectors of industry why not promote it the way it has been done for years through supporting STEM events and sponsoring local community groups. Why put a target in place?