Discrimination in any setting gets the back up on the majority of Western society. Injustice of many sorts gives a well-meant, well-intended civilisation reason for pause, brings out the “I thought those days were over with, how dare you” critics, and passes judgment that is more harsh than the perpetration that inspired our back raising.
But let’s consider the notion of bias, and how inherent it is in our thought processes and in our beliefs and practises. Consider the following, make a judgment, and see what recent news is actually revealing about our ability to analyse the issues rife with discrimination.
- An “attractive” woman attaches a photo to her CV. An “attractive” man does the same. Who, according to prevailing thinking, would you think is the most likely to be hired? Moreover, what does the recent research say?
- Which sector that has seen tremendous growth in the bodies over the last 20 years sees gender discrimination as “a problem” rife with “Stone Age Attitudes”? And how do the female practitioners within this industry feel about it?
- According to a survey conducted by the Employers Forum on Age, one out of every three workers believe they have faced discrimination when applying for a job because of their age (17%) or favouritism/the other candidate fitting the company’s ‘personality’ better (16%) towards other candidates in the same company.” Thinking analytically, what exactly does “fitting the company’s ‘personality’ better” mean? Is this “independent network” with goals of “tackling ageism at work” framing the question to their platform?
To our first bullet, I refer you to an article in the Daily Mail, 19th April:
“The research, published by The Royal Economic Society, involved sending more than 5,300 CVs for 2,650 job vacancies. For each job, two applications were sent. One contained a photograph of an attractive man or woman, or a plain-looking man or woman. The other CV was identical, but did not contain a photograph.
“Nearly 20 per cent of attractive men got an interview.
“But only 12.8 per cent of attractive women fared as well.”
Honestly, is that what you would’ve suspected? Show of hands, please.
And here lies the big rub: a spokesman who carried out the study, blamed jealousy within hiring departments for the discrepancy. Back to the Daily Mail article and a quote from Bradley Ruffle, from the Department of Economics at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, which carried out the study:
“He (Ruffle) blamed ‘the high number of women in human resources staffing positions’. It is their job to look through a mountain of CVs and job applications to decide who should be asked for an interview, and who should not.
“When they see an application from a pretty woman, researchers said, many of these staff feel extremely ‘jealous’ of their potential colleague and often reject her instantly.
“To check this stereotype, researchers telephoned the companies who were recruiting to find out about the people who screened the candidates.
“They found that 96 per cent were female, the majority were between the ages of 23 and 34 and nearly 70 per cent were single.”
And herein lies something that coincides with a long-held belief of Arras People – why would you attach a photo in the first place? Again from the Daily Mail:
“The research was conducted in Israel because it is normal to attach a photograph in the corner of a CV there, unlike in Britain…
“For the best chance of getting an interview, a woman should send in a CV without a picture, (Ruffle) said.”
As I’ve stated, we’ve pushed this thinking (for both men and women) ourselves, and it bears repeating now that you have the evidence from this latest study: why would you want to volunteer something that could be a deal-breaker before it even has to be?
***
On to the second point: that sector we asked about is the IT industry. The sector that perhaps best personifies the era of flying cars and The Jetsons lifestyle seemingly forgot that George was still doing the work, Jane still doing all house chores.
IT recruiters Greythorn found from the results of a study in late March that:
“‘If this rate of growth continues, it will take 54 years for women in IT to achieve parity with the rest of the labour market.’
“Surprisingly, female respondents indicated that they would still prefer to have a male boss.
“The research found that eight per cent of men would prefer to report to a woman, while only six per cent of females expressed this view.”
Within a relatively young sector, I’m left to wonder: is this merely a growing pain? Or have the guys simply gotten the early jump in spite of a more equal world, a world that doesn’t necessarily say “No Men Allowed” in the first place? And are we witnessing a teflon-skinned collection of women that simply lets these things bounce off without worry about upward mobility or sexism?
The last two sentences also speak well to our last bullet point and the notion of jealousy amongst working women. What else to explain two per cent fewer women wanting a female boss than men?
Back to the IT sector. Speaking truthfully, the main findings here are anything but new. Our 2008 Project Management Benchmark Survey backed up the rumblings about a sexist nature within IT. Project managers sensed the trend then:
“When looking at the comments in terms of industry sectors it was not unexpected to see that Construction, Engineering and Manufacturing were all seen as male dominated and difficult for female respondents, however a significant number of negative comments were aimed at the IT industry. Many female respondents felt that they had to ‘work much harder in their roles to prove their worth and gain respect’.”
***
To the third bullet-point now. Denise Keating, Chief Executive of Employers Forum on Age, stated:
“Whilst age is the biggest discriminator in the workplace, it is important not to overlook other biases, such as favouritism or gender. There seems to be a very high instance of people being selected for a new job or promotion if their ‘face fits’, which unfortunately means some people feel that talent isn’t enough to overcome prejudices. Whilst many companies have solid diversity policies, this may not run throughout the company down to individual team level, which is an issue that needs to be addressed.”
My back is up. To answer my own earlier question, yes, I do partly feel this study is framed to fit EFA’s platforms. To review, the choice for partakers is written “favouritism/the other candidate fitting the company’s ‘personality’ better”. The wording in that particular choice is so open and hard to quantify: ‘favouritism’ can be interpreted to mean ‘we like this candidate’s combination of skills, knowledge and experience better than yours in this particular role’. Admittedly, it’s vague and perhaps could be personification of an unconscious bias at work, but how on Earth is that even close to being enough evidence as to being discrimination?
Too many questions abound:
- In the face of rejection, how many of these polled candidates take a truly hard look at themselves and their shortcomings?
- What percentage of the 16% in question asked for (and received) constructive feedback?
- Was it simply enough for them to see only the rejection, and not the ability to use all available outlets to formulate an informed stock take on what your candidacy for that role was missing?
Make no mistake about it – rejection sucks. But the trap of dismissing one’s own failure as a mere case of “favouritism” might give some unsuccessful candidates a bit too much licence to not do their homework. By comparison, it may simply be easier to ignore the necessary chase of the evidence to provide a solid assessment as to why things didn’t work out, and – ultimately – to better your prospects next time around to ensure things turn out better.
What do you think?
